Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Greenock Port and Harbours Order Confirmation Bill (by Order).

Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BOXER INDEMNITY).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any nations have remitted part of the Boxer indemnity due from China on the understanding that it is devoted to educational purposes; and whether the United States of America are considering further action in that direction?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I am not aware that any nation has remitted a part of the Boxer indemnity due from China, with the exception of the remission by the United States of America in 1908 of a part of their share, which has been used by the Chinese Government for the education of Chinese students in America. In August, 1921, the United States Senate passed a Resolution authorising the President at his discretion to remit all or any of the payments still due. So far as I am aware, this Resolution has not yet passed the House of Representatives, and no information has been received as to the intentions of the United States Government in the matter.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 56.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the renewed expressions of opinion in favour of encouraging the education of Chinese students in this country, whereby they become imbued with British tendencies and commercial methods, he will further consider the desirability of our waiving
our claims to the balance of the Boxer indemnity on the strict understanding that it is devoted to the purpose specified?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The attitude to be adopted by His Majesty's Government towards the resumption of indemnity payments next December is under consideration in its various aspects.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

WHITE BOOK.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the last White Book on Egyptian affairs deals only with matters up to the end of February of this year; and whether he will issue another White Book immediately so as to bring up to date public knowledge in Great Britain of conditions in that country?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the latter in the negative. As Egypt is now independent, the issue of periodical reports on internal conditions is a matter for the Egyptian rather than for His Majesty's Government. No doubt, however, it will be found convenient for His Majesty's Government to publish from time to lime reports on Egyptian affairs of special interest to Great Britain.

Mr. MURRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government contemplate publishing such a report at an early date, in view of the murders that are taking place in that country? Surely something is necessary to inform the public of this country what is the position?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot give a definite assurance, but I will look into the matter.

Mr. MURRAY: Then will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of issuing a statement at an early date, for the information of this House, as to the conditions in Egypt, if he be not able to to issue a White Book?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will consider that.

Lieut-Colonel JAMES: May I ask whether, when the hon. Gentleman issues
such a statement, if he propose to do so, he will make a statement first of all as to the agrarian crime in the country, and, in the second place, as to the arrangements that have been made, or attempted to be made, between the British and Egyptian Governments with regard to the compensation of officials?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That might possibly form a subject of such a periodical White Paper as that which I mentioned in my answer.

OUTRAGES ON BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the attempted assassination of Colonel Piggott, Army Pay Department, in Cairo; whether any of the perpetrators of this outrage have been captured; whether the attention of the Egyptian Government has been drawn to the circumstances that in every recent instance of an outrage of this kind upon British subjects the perpetrator has been suffered to escape: and whether the Egyptian Government has been informed that the British Government cannot countenance the indefinite repetition of such outrages?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Colonel Piggott, of the Army Pay Corps, was shot at 8.30 a.m. on 15th July, twice in the lungs by one of two effendis, who were apparently lying in wait for Mm near the British Consulate in Cairo. I regret to say that both miscreants escaped. The answer to the remainder of the question is in the affirmative.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that there were two Egyptian policemen, one on each side, within a hundred yards of where this officer was shot, and yet the perpetrators got away? How does the hon. Gentleman explain that?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not know where my Noble Friend obtained that information. It has not reached me.

Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries to see whether it be correct, and, if so, take action?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Is the same sort of inquiry being conducted into the murder of this officer as is being conducted in the
former case? Is His Majesty's Government satisfied with the form of inquiry that is being conducted, in view of the fact that no discoveries are ever made as to the persons who are responsible for these outrages?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no doubt the Egyptian Government is taking every possible step to discover the perpetrators, and His Majesty's Government has very strongly urged the Egyptian Government to take every possible measure.

Mr. MURRAY: Does the hon. Gentleman not remember that ho informed the House a week ago that an inquiry was being conducted, with such assistance as might be necessary from the military authorities, and will he not take steps to strengthen the Court of Inquiry in consultation and co-operation with the Egyptian Government, so that we can get something out of it?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I can assure my hon. Friend that Lord Allenby, on his part, is doing his best to assist in bringing the offenders to justice.

ANGORA (GOVERNMENTS REPRESENTED).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Governments are officially represented at Angora; and if he is aware that practically every Moslem community in the world has delegates at Angora accredited to the Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: According to the information in the possession of His Majesty's Government, the Governments officially represented at Angora are Soviet Russia, Persia, Afghanistan, and Azerbaijan. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

CUSTOMS (SEARCH AT SEA).

Sir W. de FRECE: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the Customs jurisdiction on the high seas accords with the limit of the international three miles, it has been at any time suggested, and-if so, under what circumstances, that this policy should be remodelled and the right of Customs search carried out at a greater distance from shore?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The question of remodelling the Customs Consolidation Act, which superseded the old Hovering Acts, with a view to extending Customs search beyond the three mile limit, has at no time been considered.

Sir W. de FRECE: Is the hon. Member aware that the United States Government have decided to revive the obsolete Act?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

PORTUGAL (SHIPPING CHARGES).

Mr. GILBERT: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Portuguese Government has yet introduced the promised legislation dealing with the complaints of British shipowners in regard to the excessive dues and charges now made on British ships entering Portuguese ports; and can he make any statement on the subject?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon, who has not ceased to impress upon the Portuguese Government the serious injury inflicted on British shipping by the Portuguese Decrees at present in force, reports that the proposed legislation is to be introduced towards the end of the present Session of the Portuguese Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMAN MARK.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the internal value of the mark?

Sir JOHN BAIRD (for Mr. Hilton Young): I do not think I can usefully add anything to the reply given by the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) on the 17th July.

REPARATION (AUSTRIA).

Colonel NEWMAN: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in accordance with the Treaty of Saint Germain, the Reparation Commission appointed under Article 179 is still in existence; if so, when did it last meet;. whether it was by the authority of the Commission that a lien was given
by Austria to certain of the Allied Powers on her valuable national possessions; whether this lien now operates against her being able to offer these possessions as collateral against the raising of a foreign loan; and, in view of the financial situation of Austria, will Great Britain and the other Allied Powers now forgo any lien they may possess in accordance with Clause 22 of Annex 2?

Sir J. BAIRD: The Austrian section of the Reparation Commission is still in existence, and meets at the headquarters of the Commission in Paris: the last meeting of which I am aware was held yesterday. The lien on Austrian assets in respect of the cost of reparation was imposed by Article 197 of the Treaty of Saint Germain, and not by the authority of the Reparation Commission, but this charge is subject to such exceptions as the Commission may make. I agree that the release or postponement for a long period of the lien on Austrian assets is very desirable, in order to enable her to offer assets as security for a foreign loan. His Majesty's Government, in common with the other principal Allied Governments, have been endeavouring for many months to obtain the consent of all the Powers entitled to Reparation from Austria to the release or postponement of the lien on Austrian assets, and renewed efforts to attain this object were recently made through the Conference of Ambassadors. It will not be necessary, in order to achieve this object, to amend Annex II to Part VIII (Reparation) of the Treaty of Saint Germain under the provisions of paragraph 22 of that Annex.

Colonel NEWMAN: Has the hon. Member seen the report in to-day's papers that, as a matter of fact, the Allied Powers have remitted their lien on these Austrian possessions?

Sir J. BAIRD: I have seen that report in the newspapers, but I am not quite certain whether it is correct. We have no confirmation of it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that this so-called Reparation Commission has been for many months a Relief Commission for suffering Austria, and ought it not to be so described in the future?

Sir J. BAIRD: I think there is a great deal in what the hon. and gallant Member says.

GERMANY REPARATION.

Mr. LYLE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state in the simplest form possible, for the benefit of the public, the exact amount which has been paid by Germany under the Versailles Treaty, either in cash or kind; and what proportion this represents of the total War indemnity demanded so far as figures have been formulated?

Sir J. BAIRD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question asked by the right hon. Member for the South Molton Division (Mr. Lambert) on the 4th instant. The statement there given shows that, up to the 30th April, 1922, the amount credited on account of reparation was about £212,000,000, taking 20 gold marks as equivalent to £1 sterling. Germany's total liability in respect of reparation (exclusive of prior charges) was fixed by the Reparation Commission in 1921 at £6,600 millions, payable over a period of years.

Sir W. DAVISON: Has this country received as much from Germany as will cover the cost of the Army on the Rhine?

Sir J. BAIRD: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question about that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

COASTGUARD SERVICE.

Viscount CURZON: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the future of the Coastguard Service?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I hope that a decision will be reached shortly.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in coming to a decision with regard to the Coastguard Service is reacting rather badly on that Service, and that officers and men are getting very anxious?

Mr. AMERY: A decision will be reached as soon as we can, but the question is full of difficulty.

His MAJESTY'S SHIP "ALACRITY."

Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is to be done with H.M.S."Alacrity"?

Mr. AMERY: The yacht "Alacrity" has been brought home, and paid off at Plymouth. She was returned to the owner last week at Cowes, the owner paying the cost of the voyage from Plymouth to Cowes.

Viscount CURZON: Has any payment actually been made to the owner besides handing over the yacht?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; I understand not.

AIR SERVICE.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, in an address to the 1920 Club, to the effect that the Navy must have control over its Air Service; and whether this statement represents the views of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): The Government policy-was stated by me in this House on 16th March of this year, and to this statement I have at present nothing to add, as the inquiry into the system of naval and air co-operation which I then foreshadowed is still proceeding. I should add that the meeting addressed by my Noble Friend was a private one, and reporters were not present. The account of what he said which reached the Press was, I am informed by him, unauthorised and incorrect.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can the Lord Privy Seal tell us what the right hon. Gentleman did say?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Nothing inconsistent with the statement of policy which I made to the House in March last.

Captain W. BENN: Will the Committee, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, give effect to the decision of the Government to maintain the unity and integrity of the Air Force?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, the decision of the Government was that there should be an integral Air Force, and the Committee to which I have referred, and the appointment of which I then foreshadowed, was to consider methods in
which Naval and Air Force co-operation could be most effectively carried out to the advantage of both services, and, above all, to the advantage of the country.

Mr. LAMBERT: When will the Committee report?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say. It is dealing with very important matters, and with matters, admittedly, of some difficulty. With every good will on both sides, there will be no delay, but I cannot fix a time.

EX-SERVICE MEN (INSTRUCTIONAL FACTORY, HULL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour if it has now been decided to close the Government Instructional Factory at Spring Bank, Hull, and to transfer the trainees to the factory at Leeds; if the Hull establishment is better equipped, and managed on more economical lines, than that at Leeds; whether it was the original intention to close the factories at Leeds and Sheffield, but not Hull; what has been the cause of the alteration in policy in this respect; and if he will consent to receive a deputation on the subject before finally taking action?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): It has been decided, after very careful consideration, to close the Government Instructional Factory at Hull next month, but this decision will in no way prejudice the prospects of the men now awaiting training in Hull and the surrounding district. It may be possible to arrange for two classes to be retained at Hull, and training facilities will also be available at Leeds, Keighley, Beverley and Birtley. It is not the case that the Hull establishment is better equipped or more economically managed than that at Leeds. I will see a deputation of course. But I doubt whether they will be able to convince me that I ought to keep this factory going.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman see that it is very hard luck on ex-service men in Hull to have to travel to Leeds for their classes, especially when married; does he not realise that Hull is the centre of a great area cut off from Leeds and the West Riding: and ought it not to be
retained for the benefit of ex-service men already there?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The importance of Hull is not likely to be lost sight of. I have 250 places with considerable overhead charges and I have got 65 men there. Therefore I am distributing them in surrounding establishments. They will get travelling allowance. There are 500 on the waiting list in and about Hull. If the local technical committees would pass enough I would consider keeping the factory going.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Leeds there is nothing like the accommodation provided in Hull, and that there is also a great waiting list in Leeds? Why should not Leeds men come to Hull?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a question which was considered very carefully, and, after great consideration, it was given in favour of Leeds.

Captain O'GRADY: Is there any truth contained in the question that it is more economical at Hull than at Leeds?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is not the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

RELIEF WORK SCHEMES.

Sir W. de FRECE: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Grants Committee, in assisting any relief work schemes of which they may approve, will deal with and decide all applications according to priority of receipt: whether they will at least ensure that necessitous areas are not overlooked; and whether some balance will be retained as long as possible to deal with cases of emergency which may present themselves in the coming winter, even at a late date?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The method of dealing with applications is necessarily one to be decided by the Committee, but I am quite sure that they will see that the moneys placed at their disposal are distributed to the best advantage that the circumstances permit.

COVENANTED BENEFIT.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour whether men who were employed in an insured trade
before they enlisted had their insurance accounts credited with full contributions during their period of service with the forces; and, if so, how is it that in many cases they are being told they have exhausted their right to covenanted benefit, notwithstanding the fact that since their demobilisation they have not received as much covenanted unemployment benefit as is being paid to non-service men engaged in the same trade?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Before the passing of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, no unemployment insurance contributions were paid or credited for service with the forces. Under that Act men discharged from the forces after 31st July, 1920, have been credited with contributions in respect of their services— 90 contributions if discharged before July, 1922, and 156 contributions if discharged after that date. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, ex-service men discharged up to 31st July, 1920, received out-of-work donation amounting in total to a very large sum, and have received preferential treatment as regards un-covenanted benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the ex-service men are not in a worse position than they would have been if their accounts had been credited with their payment up to the time they were serving with the Colours?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That it is difficult to say. What I can say, however, is that, both in respect of the Insurance Act and relief works, we have endeavoured to give preference to ex-service men.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Sir W. DAVISON: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour how many officials, and at what cost to the State, are employed by the Ministry of Labour in connection with the placing of women in private domestic service and for the inspection of private houses where girls under 18 have been placed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The placing of women in private domestic service is part of the work of women's departments of the Exchanges. No special staff is employed for this purpose. No officials are now, or ever have been, employed by the
Ministry for the inspection of private houses. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that during the last 18 months the Employment Exchange officials have filled 284,000 vacancies for women, 190,000 of them being in domestic service, day and residential.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not the case that there are inspectors who visit girls under 18, who are in domestic service in private houses?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Not from the Ministry of Labour. They have no right to do so. Besides there are no such officials.

Sir M.DOCKRELL: How does the right hon. Gentleman prove that he has found places for these women?

Dr. MACNAMARA: A woman registers at the Exchange that she wants work. If there be a vacancy also registered, we call her attention to it. If she take the place, it is filled, that is all.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Thus you have proof that you have filled a vacancy?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.

WEDNESBURY (BENEFIT, J. COOPER).

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that J. Cooper, of 39, Alexandra Road, Wednesbury, was informed eight, weeks ago by the Wednesbury Employment Exchange that he was not entitled to further unemployment benefit, as he had no stamps to his credit, until the period 20th July, 1918, to 12th July, 1919; that Cooper contested this statement and supplied evidence from the Metropolitan Carriage, Wagon, and Finance Company, Limited, of being an insured workman as from 1912: and seeing that, in spite of frequent applications, Cooper can obtain no benefit, will he hold an investigation into this case and instruct the local exchange to make, the necessary payments?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am making inquiries locally in this case, and will communicate (he result to my hon. Friend.

JUVENILKS.

Mr. GILBERT: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the closing
of the continuation schools in London, he has made any arrangements for the officers of the employment exchanges, who now attend these schools in order to provide employment for girls and boys leaving school, to continue their work for juvenile employment elsewhere; and can he make any statement on the subject?

Dr. MACNAMARA: These officers have been withdrawn from the schools at which the day continuation classes were held and are now employed at the exchanges, except in certain cases in which their employment has been terminated. The boys and girls concerned were invited to register at the exchanges, and many of them have done so.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.

Colonel BURN: 25.
asked the Minister of Health if any decision has been arrived at regarding the renewal or repeal of the Rent Restrictions Act when it ceases to be operative in 1923?

Sir A. MOND: A Committee is being appointed to consider the whole question referred to.

Colonel BURN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Committee will meet, and what chance there will be of the public, who are interested in this, knowing what result has been arrived at?

Sir A. MOND: The Committee will meet as soon as I have been able to get the personnel, and it has been constituted? I have no doubt they will report as soon as they have been able to inquire into all the facts.

Captain W. BENN: Will this House be informed as to the names, and will the Report of the Committee be laid before the House?

Sir A. MOND: The House will undoubtedly be informed of the names of the Committee as soon as I know them.

Dr. ADDISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman decided on the terms of reference'?

Sir A. MOND: I have been considering the terms of reference. They follow on the lines laid down by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Addison).

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES (MEN EMPLOYED).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 26.
asked the Minister of Health the number of men employed in building houses for local authorities under the provisions of the Housing Act of 1919 in each of the six months, January to June?

Sir A. MOND: The number of men employed in building houses in assisted schemes of local authorities and public utility societies in each of the months referred to was as follows:


—
Skilled.
Unskilled.
Total.


January
…
58,083
39,188
97,271


February
…
54,610
36,565
91,175


March
…
52,666
35,867
88,533


April
…
48,610
34,224
82,834


May
…
44,494
30,438
74,932


June
…
39,904
20,747
66,651


It may be pointed out that unemployment in the building trade has steadily fallen in each of these months.

Mr. THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a reduction of over 30,000 men engaged in building houses is carrying out the pledge of the Prime Minister that not a single house less would be built if a change were made in policy?

Sir A. MOND: That is a question which would better be addressed to the Prime Minister.

WORKMEN'S HOUSES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 27.
asked the Minister of Health at what price he estimates the ordinary speculative builder can now erect workmen's houses of the standard required under the Government's assisted housing schemes; and what would be the weekly rent payable, exclusive of rates, to give the speculative builder an adequate return on each house?

Sir A. MOND: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member the information he asks for. The conditions under which speculative builders operate vary so considerably in different cases that any general statement would be misleading.

Mr. THOMSON: If the right hon. Gentleman has not this information, on what was his statement based that private enterprise could fulfil the housing needs that the Government had left vacant?

Sir A. MOND: I did not say that I had no information, but that I have not got information which I could put in the shape of an answer to the question.

Mr. THOMSON: Can the House have the advantage of the information the right hon. Gentleman has in his possession?

POOR LAW (WOMAN INSPECTOR).

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has recently advertised for a woman Poor Law inspector to perform responsible duties over a large area at a salary of £200 per annum, rising by annual increments of £10 to £350; whether the salaries of male Poor Law inspectors are about £l,000: and on what grounds he has decided that a woman with the qualifications specified in the advertisement and the same responsible duties, should be paid so much less than a man, in view of the pledges given by the Government in the women's Civil Service Debate of last, year?

Sir A. MOND: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The salaries of the male inspectors are £600. rising to £900, and in three cases only, to £1,000. As regards the second part, the hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. The responsibilities and duties-of the women inspectors and the male general inspectors are in no way comparable.

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (INCREASED CHARGES).

Colonel NEWMAN: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the increase in the charges for water that have been made in the Metropolitan district for the current quarter; that the Barnet District Water Company have increased their rate by approximately 20 per cent., and that the explanation given is that the increase is authorised by the Minister of Health; and whether these increases have been made without legisla-
tion and the authority of his Ministry alone?

Sir A. MOND: I am aware of the increases referred to. Those made by the Metropolitan Water Board were authorised by the Metropolitan Water Board (Charges) Act, 1921, and did not require my consent. The increased charges of the Barnet District Water Company were authorised by an Order made by me under the Water Undertakings (Modification of Charges) Act, 1921, after an inquiry and full consideration of all the facts. No objection was made to the Order, and the Act provides that in the absence of objection the Order may take effect without the confirmation of Parliament.

Colonel NEWMAN: When this inquiry was held, were those concerned given a chance to appear, so that they might object?

Sir A. MOND: It is necessarily open to take objection to any such Order, and if it be taken, the Order must come before the House. No objection has been taken to the Order.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the consumers in Barnet have no information whatsoever of this intended increase, and will he give them the opportunity of being heard on the subject before the Order is allowed to be put into operation?

Sir A. MOND: I was not aware of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I send the right hon. Gentleman proof of the fact that that is the case, and, if so, will he take the matter into consideration?

Sir A. MOND: Most certainly I will.

SMOKE ABATEMENT BILL.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has in his possession the data required for the introduction of a Smoke Abatement Bill; and whether he can give any intimation as to a prospective date for its introduction?

Sir A. MOND: I hope that this Bill will be introduced in another place this week.

BOARDS OF GUARDIANS, LONDON.

Mr. GILBERT: 31.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of boards of guardians in the county of London; what is the total number of members of such boards; what is the total expenditure of guardians in London for the last financial year; if his Department makes any grants from taxes towards this expenditure; and, if so, to what extent?

Sir A. MOND: There are 28 boards of guardians in the county of London, and the total number of members of those boards is nearly 800. The total expenditure of London guardians, excluding payments made to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, for 1920–1921, the latest year for which particulars are available, was £6,912,000. The grants made by my Department from taxes towards this expenditure amount to £5,836. In addition, grants are payable to the guardians by the county council out of the money paid to them by my Department from the Local Taxation Account and from other moneys.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Mr. HURD: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour what further economies he has effected in the administration of his Department since his statement of 10th April last; and what are the present numbers and cost of that administration as compare with 1913?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information for which he asks.

Mr. HURD: Seeing the necessity for getting at the facts, will the right hon. Gentleman read to hon. Members one or two?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, yes, I will give the first sentence. Since the beginning of April this year, the staff of the Ministry has been reduced from 21,015 to 18,863, representing an annual cost of approximately £350,000.

Following is the full reply:

Since the beginning of April this year the staff of the Ministry has been reduced from 21,015 to 18,863, a reduction of 2,152, representing an annual cost of approximately £350,000. So far as the
Employment and Insurance Department is concerned, since the 10th April, one Employment Exchange and 16 branch offices have been closed, and nine exchanges and temporary sub-offices have been converted into branch employment offices. In other directions economies have been effected on the administrative side by closing a number of offices and concentrating effort in a smaller number of establishments. My hon. Friend can have these steps fully placed before him if he so desires. I shall do my best to secure further economies, so far as this is compatible with carrying out the measures deemed necessary for dealing with unemployment and the redemption of our obligation to the ex-service man. No useful comparison can be made with the year 1913, as the Ministry was not created till 1917, and by far the greatest part of the work now done by the Ministry (including all the work arising from the War) was not being performed at all in 1913. If my hon. Friend will read my statement of 10th April on laying my Estimates before the House he will see that I deal fully with the endeavour to institute the comparison sought to be made in the last part of his question.

CIVIL SERVICE ARBITRATION BOARD.

Captain O'GRADY: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the opposition of the postal workers to the abolition of the Civil Service Arbitration Board and the action of the Government in adding to the existing Whitley Council three supporters of the Government to take over the function of the Arbitration Board; and, having regard to the fact that nothing but an independent court of appeal such as a board of arbitration provides can settle satisfactorily the disputes which have been found incapable of adjustment by the Whitley committees or by direct negotiations between the staff organisations and the State, will he reconsider the matter, with a view of retaining the present board?

Sir J. BAIRD: I have been asked to reply. Representations have been made on this subject. It is not the case that the National Whitley Council, as reconstituted, will take over any function of the Civil Service A[...]bitration Board. With regard to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the
replies given to the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham on the 22nd February last and to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith on the 24th May last.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 60.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he proposes to appoint an officer from the junior administrative staff of the General Post Office to an executive post in his Department; what are the present and maximum substantive salary and the temporary emoluments of this officer; and what increase of present and maximum substantive salary will accrue to him from the appointment?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): There were four vacancies to be filled, and, following the usual practice, names were considered from the Government Pool and from within the Ministry. Three of these vacancies were filled from within the Ministry and one from the Government Pool by the appointment of the officer referred to who has a distinguished War record. This officer's present substantive salary is £386, rising to £500 a year. In addition he receives an allowance as Private Secretary of £200 and a bonus of £260 a year, or £846 in all. The substantive salary of his new post is from £760 to £850 a year, together with the appropriate bonus.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DRUGS AND MEDICINES).

Sir JOHN LEIGH: 32.
asked the Minister of Health what, if any, precautions are taken against the supply of drugs and medicines of inferior quality to panel patients by retail chemists; and is he aware that such patients are frequently informed that they can have drugs and medicines of superior quality by paying for them?

Sir A. MOND: Tests are made from time to time to ensure that prescriptions are correctly dispensed, and severe penalties have been imposed in cases where chemists have supplied drugs of a kind different from that ordered by the doctor. As regards the latter part of the question, if the hon. Member will give the particulars of any cases where such
statements have been made, whether by practitioners or chemists, which have been brought to his notice, I will have inquiry made with a view to disciplinary action if the facts can be established.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MALICIOUS INJURIES (MEDICAL EXPENSES).

Captain CRAIG: 35.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that Charles W. McGuirc, ex-sergeant in the Royal Irish Constabulary, was awarded £1,700 compensation for injuries received in an ambush in 1921 while on patrol in the town of Letterkenny; whether £l,350 of this has been paid, and that Sergeant McGuire has been informed that £80 or £90 will be deducted from the balance for medical expenses; and whether he will see that, as the injuries from which Sergeant McGuire suffered were received in the exercise of his duty, the medical expenses rendered necessary by these injuries shall be borne by the Crown, and that no portion of the sum awarded to Sergeant McGuire shall be deducted?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): The question of the deduction of medical and nursing expenses in cases of this nature is under consideration. If the hon. and gallant Member will repeat his question at a later date I hope to be able to give him a definite reply.

Captain CRAIG: On what principle of justice can a policeman or a soldier, in the exercise of his duty, be called upon to pay medical expenses out of his own pocket?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I quite agree, if the facts are as stated, with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's conclusion, but as this is a grant of public money, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will give me the opportunity of proceeding through the usual channels.

Captain CRAIG: Surely this must have happened in hundreds of cases, and lots of these people must have been injured in cases of this kind.

REFUGEES (RELIEF).

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether arrangements have now been concluded to strengthen the personnel of the Irish Relief Committee over which
the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) presides; in what manner this is to be done; what will be the revised terms of reference and what additional funds will be allocated for the purposes of relief: and whether he will arrange that relief Sub-committees be set up in Glasgow and Liverpool and any other town in Great Britain where Irish refugees, of whatever religion, arrive or congregate?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): Yes, Sir, the arrangements of which I informed the House in reply to the question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea on Monday, have been completed and I am informed that a notice will be issued to-day to the Press from the offices of the Committee.
I am advised that these changes do not necessitate any revision of the Committee's terms of reference and that the funds at their disposal are adequate for their immediate needs. The House can rest assured, however, that no case in which the Committee is competent to give financial assistance will be allowed to suffer through lack of funds.
In reply to the last part of the question, the Committee are competent to deal, and do in fact deal, with cases by correspondence all over this country and in this connection are in close touch with the chief constables, and I have before me no evidence to show that this system is not successful or that the inauguration of a local Sub-committee system is necessary.

Colonel BURN: If the Committee presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoarc) be able to give assistance to Irish people driven out of their houses and who are in absolute want in this country, will that Committee allot them a sum of money or give them assistance, in order to keep them alive?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is what the Committee is for.

Mr. MURRAY: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman has said over and over again that the functions of this Committee ought to be enlarged, and did not the right hon. Gentleman himself tell the House last week that the func-
tions of the Committee were going to be enlarged?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member had been in his place on Monday last—

Mr. MURRAY: I read the right hon. Gentleman's replies in the OFFICIAL. REPORT.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Then if the hon. Member will recall what he has read in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that his question was fully answered.

Mr. MURRAY: As regards the terms of reference, the right hon. Gentleman, said that they were not to be extended, and, in view of what has happened in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of extending the terms of reference?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They have been extended.

Mr. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the letter of the hon. Member for Worcester (Sir E. Goulding) which appeared in the "Morning Post" and the "Times" this morning?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member wishes me to read that letter, he might, perhaps, cut it out, and send it to me.

PROTESTANT CHURCHES, DUBLIN.

Captain CRAIG: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Protestant Church of St. Thomas, in Marlborough Street, Dublin, was burnt during the recent fighting in the Sackville Street area in that city and the Roman Catholic Cathedral, which is but a few doors away, has been spared; whether he is aware that the forces engaged in the fighting in this area took no steps whatever to save the fabric of the Protestant Church, while every effort was made to save the Roman Catholic Cathedral; and whether representations are being made to the Free State authorities that the Imperial Government will demand that the fullest compensation shall be paid for the damage or destruction of property belonging to loyalists and Unionists in that State?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not regard the fact that a Protestant building was destroyed, while the Catholic Church escaped injury in the conflagration, as-justifying the conclusion that no effort was made to save the former from
destruction. I understand that in the particular case in question the Protestant Church is believed to have caught fire from the neighbouring buildings due to the direction of the wind, and that the firemen did in fact do everything in their power to prevent its destruction. As regards the question of compensation, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement in the latter part of my reply to a question addressed to me on the 17th instant, by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea.

Captain CRAIG: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the attack on St. Kevin's Protestant Church, South Circular Road, Dublin, on Tuesday the 11th instant, when men broke into the church and riddled the organ with bullets, smashed the electric lights and windows of the church, and left the building with the floor littered with empty cartridge cases; whether a patrol consisting of 10 or 12 men, under an officer or non-commissioned officer of the Free State was in the vicinity at the time and took no steps to protect the church; whether he will demand an explanation of this sacrilege from the Free State Government, and of the action of their officers, and their failure to protect the property of loyal citizens: and whether he has taken any steps to obtain a guarantee that such outrages as these shall cease?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that an officer of the Free State Army was sent to investigate this outrage as soon as it was brought to the notice of the authorities, and that the Provisional Government have the matter under consideration. In reply to the last part of the question it must be obvious that neither His Majesty's Government nor the Provisional Government can give any guarantee that outrages of this kind by irresponsible persons will altogether cease in Ireland.

Captain CRAIG: Will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of making a strong statement to the public generally and to the Provisional Government in Dublin in particular, to the effect that the Free State Government will have to pay for all such outrages as these, and if he 3oes that, does he not think it will have a very good effect on the people in Ireland who are committing so many of these outrages?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is essentially part of the case that the Provisional Government are putting before the people of Ireland that the whole cost of repairing the damage now being inflicted will fall upon them. They are making that plain in every communication they issue.

Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it plain to this House that that will be the case, namely, that the Free State Government will have to pay for all these outrages?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is obvious that any Government professing to carry on a civilised administration in a modern State must insist upon proper compensation to persons for property damaged by riot or malicious injury.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then why should we pay for the damage done by the constituents of the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Craig)?

Captain CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if my constituents are known to have been guilty of any outrages?

FREE STATE INDEBTEDNESS.

Sir F. HALL: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total debt to the Imperial Exchequer which has been incurred by the Irish Free State since its establishment; whether any security has been given therefor in the shape of control over Customs, dues, or otherwise; and will he state what rate of interest is being paid on any sums that have been advanced and what arrangement is proposed for their repayment?

Sir J. BAIRD: No sums have been advanced from the Imperial Exchequer to the Irish Free State by way of loan or interest. Certain sums are payable by the Irish Free State to the Imperial Exchequer in respect of debts collected by the Free State, of the cost of services not yet transferred, and of equipment supplied; and periodical claims for repayment are being rendered. No security has been asked for these sums, nor is interest being charged. There are also certain charges which are incurred in the first instance by the Irish Free State, and are recoverable from the Imperial Exchequer.

Sir F. HALL: Is it the intention of the Government to allow loans or outstand-
ing amounts due from the Free State without any security whatever? Is no security going to be taken for any amounts that were advanced or lent to, or which are due from, the Free State?

Sir J. BAIRD: It is only a temporary arrangement during the transitional period. These sums are being collected purely temporarily, subject to a permanent arrangement being made.

Sir F. HALL: Is it the intention of the Government to make a permanent arrangement with regard to these matters, and take proper security?

Sir J. BAIRD: Obviously, a permanent arrangement will have to be made when the transitional period has passed.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Are not the unfortunate Irish who have anything to lose the ultimate security?

IRAQ.

Sir F. HALL: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether negotiations are proceeding for a British loan of £2,000,000 to the Iraq Government for irrigation and agricultural purposes; and, if so, will he state what security is proposed for the repayment of this sum?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part therefore does not arise.

IMPORTED CATTLE (VOYAGE REGULATIONS).

Captain W. BENN: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what regulations exist to prevent unnecessary suffering during the voyage of live cattle imported into this country; and whether such Regulations are effective?

QUANTITY AND VALUE of Sea Fish of British taking returned as landed in Great Britain during the six months ending 30th June in 1920, 1921 and 1922.


—
Wet Fish.
Shell Fish Value.
Total Value.


Quantity.
Value.






Cwts.
£
£
£


1920
…
…
…
8,030,668
12,853,149
357,321
13,210,470


1921
…
…
…
6,406,970
10,865,784
340,373
11,206,157


1922
…
…
…
7,361,179
8,580,149
269,822
8,849,971

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Regulations for the protection of animals from unnecessary suffering during the voyage to this country are, as regards animals from abroad, contained in Chapter 6 of the Foreign Animals Order of 1910, and as regards animals from Ireland, in Part I of the Animals (Transit and General) Order of 1912, copies of which I will send to the hon. Member. Judging from the inspection of the fittings in the vessels engaged in this trade, and the number of casualties reported, I am satisfied that the Regulations are as effective as can be expected, but a certain amount of suffering is unavoidable in the ease of voyages across the Atlantic.

Captain BENN: Then, the right hon. Gentleman is of opinion that live cattle can be imported into this country under Regulations which, in his judgment, are, on the whole, effective?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I said, "as effective as can be expected." It is obvious that a certain amount of suffering is entailed, but that is unavoidable.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is there any more suffering in this case than is entailed when a race horse is sent over to the United States of America?

SEA FISH.

Sir EDWARD BEAUCHAMP: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state the total quantity and value of sea fish of British taking landed in Great Britain during the first half of the years 1920, 1921, and 1922, respectively?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement, I propose, with the permission of my hon. Friend, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

SANDHURST COLLEGE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir G. WILLS: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that from the time of the last South African War up to the present year it has been the custom to admit the sons of deceased officers of the Auxiliary and Territorial armies whose widows are, or would have been, if living, eligible for pensions, into the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, at reduced fees; that in the present year new Regulations were issued by the Army Council which, as far as the Army is concerned, debar the sons of any but Regular officers from this privilege; whether this course was adopted in order to effect economy; and, if so, what is the estimated amount of the annual saving which will result from this change in the conditions of entry?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR {Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): The facts are as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend. It is impossible to state the exact saving which will be effected by the exclusion of the sons of deceased officers of the Auxiliary and Territorial armies from the privilege of reduced fees, but as regards the general effect of the new Regulations, there will be a saving spread over a number of years which, it is estimated, will reach £50,000 per annum at its maximum, assuming that the number of cadets at the Royal Military Academy and the Royal Military College remains the same as now.

Sir G. WILLS: Does the hon. Gentleman think that he has the opinion of the country behind him in effecting this economy at the expense of War widows, and will he consider the advisability of modifying the new Regulations so that they might at least apply to the sons of Territorial and Auxiliary officers who were mobilised in 1914 and who lost their lives in the War?

Sir R. SANDERS: With regard to the first part of the question, I am never convinced that we have the opinion of the country behind us in any economy. As to the second part of the question, the whole of the facts shall be very fully considered.

Major-General SEELY: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake not to make this
decision effective until the House has had some opportunity of expressing its opinion on this tiny economy which is causing such gross hardship on the very people whom the whole House wishes to protect? Will the hon. Gentleman represent that to the Secretary of State?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, I will make that representation to the Secretary of State.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the possibility, in view of the reductions made recently in the Army and the fact that the accommodation at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, was greatly enlarged shortly before the War, of moving the Woolwich Academy to Sandhurst to occupy the older building there?

Sir R. SANDERS: This matter is already under consideration in connection with the general question of the training of candidates for commissions in the Regular Army.

TERRITORIAL GROUND FORCE, LONDON.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the formation of the new Territorial ground force for London, efforts are being made, and with what result, to get in touch with officers and men who were serving in a similar capacity at the termination of the War?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, Sir; arrangements have already been made by which it is hoped to obtain for the air defence brigades personnel who have had experience in anti-aircraft work. It is not yet possible to say how many men will be obtained.

GOVERNMENT BILLS.

Sir R. CLOUGH: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now make a statement as to what Government Bills the House of Commons will be invited before the Adjournment definitely to pass?

Mr. MILLS: 58.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Merchandise Marks Bill is to be proceeded with this Session?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 59.
asked the Lord Prvy Seal whether it is intended to proceed with the Sale of Bread Bill in the present Session; and whether, having re-
gard to the fact that its proposals are inapplicable to Scottish conditions in this trade, the reference to Scotland will be deleted in order that the passage of the Bill may be facilitated?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope to make a general statement on the Business of the House for the remainder of this portion of the Session, in the early part of next week.

HAGUE CONFERENCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make any statement on the course of proceedings at The Hague Conference; when a statement, with an opportunity for debate, will be made to Parliament; and when the next conference is to take place and where?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether it has been definitely decided to bring home the British delegation from The Hague during the present week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that there is to be a plenary session of The Hague Conference to-day for the purpose of healing any new proposals which the Russians may put forward. The future of the Conference will clearly depend on the result of the meeting. As regards the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, I would refer him to the statement made by the Prime Minister on Thursday last in regard to the Business of the House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Shall we have a statement in any case on this important subject before the House rises for the Recess?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the question which was answered by the Prime Minister last Thursday, when he stated that an opportunity would be found in Supply next week.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: When are the delegates coming home?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I had better not answer that question. I do not know what proposals the Russians are going to make to-day, or whether
they are going to make any. They indicated a desire for another meeting, and one is being held.

RUSSIA (TRADE CREDITS).

Sir F. HALL: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the course of his conferences and discussions at Genoa with members of the Soviet Delegation, he held out any hope or gave any undertaking as to the granting of credit to Russia by this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No hope of credits was held out, except such as might be secured under the Trade Facilities and Export Credits Acts by traders and business men undertaking enterprises in Russia. As stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to a question on the 11th May, His Majesty's Government made it perfectly clear from the outset that they were not prepared to make a loan to the Soviet Government.

Sir F. HALL: Am I to understand that the advantages of the Trade Facilities Act will not be granted to the Soviet Government quá Soviet Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The advantages of that Act are given to traders and business men who undertake business with Russia or elsewhere, and not to the Government of the country with which they happen to be trading.

Sir F. HALL: I only wanted to make it quite clear.

COAL (PRICES).

Sir ROBERT CLOUGH: 62.
asked the Secretary for Mines what effect the reduction of the price of coal by 9s. a ton has had on the coal market; and whether there is any reason to anticipate the extension of this reduction in prices to districts other than the Metropolis?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the letter from the Chairman of the Coal Merchants' Federation, which I read to the House on the 6th July. I am informed that the improvement in the retail coal trade mentioned in that letter
is being maintained. In reply to the second part, I understand that the reductions in London prices have already been followed by decreases in domestic coal prices in most other parts of the country.

PARENTS' NEED PENSIONS.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 65.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether in considering the general circumstances of applicants for parents' need pensions, the capital value of any resources are taken into account rather than the annual yield in income; whether he is aware that this is contrary to the practice in other spheres, e.g., in reckoning income for old age pension purposes; whether he is aware that many pensions have been refused until such capital sums are exhausted and the applicants reduced to want: and whether he will give instructions for a better system to be introduced?

Major TRYON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. My hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. Where capital is invested, the actual yield is taken, and where it is uninvested the annual income is estimated at 5 per cent. I shall be glad to inquire into any particular case my hon. Friend has in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY RATES (COAL).

Major KELLEY: 68.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether the coalowners of the country have applied to the railway tribunal for a reduction of the rates on coal?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I am informed that no application has been received by the Rates Tribunal from the coal owners for a modification of railway rates.

RAILWAYMEN (FATAL ACCIDENTS).

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: 67.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether his attention has been called to the alarming increase in the number of fatal accidents caused to railwaymen through the non-observance
by the railway companies of the working rules whereby a look-out should be provided to protect men working in gangs on the permanent way; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. NEAL: I am fully alive to the importance of the point raised by my right hon. Friend, and no opportunity has been or will be omitted by my Department of impressing upon the railway companies the necessity of taking steps to ensure that gangs working on the permanent way shall be enabled to obtain protection by the appointment of look-out men whenever danger be likely to arise. No doubt my right hon. Friend has in mind certain cases involving serious loss of life which have recently happened, but I am glad to say that there has been a marked reduction in recent years in the number of fatal accidents to men working on the permanent way, the average annual number for the four years from 1911 to 1914 having been 80, and for the last three and a half years, 52.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

JUDICIARY.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 69.
asked the Secretary for Scotland what action has been taken as to the recommendation of the Geddes Committee that an independent committee should be set up to consider the possibility of reforms, with a view to economy, in Scottish judicial arrangements?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The suggestions on which the recommendation of the Geddes Committee was based were the subject of an exhaustive inquiry by a Royal Commission in 1870, which reported against them. I do not in these circumstances propose, as at present advised, to hold the inquiry proposed.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: In view of the fact that the inquiry took place 52 years ago, and that the need for economy is presumably more than it was in 1870, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the making of some economies in the very expensive Scottish judicial system?

Mr. MUNRO: If I might respectfully recommend my hon. and gallant Friend to study the Reports of that Commission,
he will find that there are considerations to-day just as strong as were then advanced, and, moreover, the population of Scotland has increased by 45 per cent. since that date.

BOARD OF HEALTH.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 70.
asked the Secretary for Scotland what action has been taken with regard to the discontinuance suggested by the Geddes Committee of the item of £7,000 a year for port sanitation, and the reduction of members on the Scottish Board of Health?

Mr. MUNRO: In view of the fact that the port sanitation services are in large measure national services, in the efficient maintenance of which the whole nation is interested, it was decided to make provision in the Estimates for the current year of the Scottish Board of Health for the sum referred to as representing a fair contribution from the State towards the cost of these services at Scottish ports. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to Section 23 of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, from which he will see that it is proposed to effect the reduction of members recommended by the Geddes Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Is it not possible to effect a reduction without waiting for the Bill in question to become law?

Mr. MUNRO: No, certainly not, because these members were appointed by Statute, and another Statute is required to modify it.

Dr. MURRAY: Has not the population of Scotland increased, and why should the medical officers be decreased?

Mr. MUNRO: A full explanation of all the circumstances was given when the Bill was before the House.

ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will submit to the House a statement showing under various heads how he arrives at the approximate estimate of
between £700,000 and £750,000 as being the amount by which he hopes that the public charges will be reduced in a normal year if and when the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill reaches the Statute Book?

Sir J. BAIRD: It is hoped that the following savings may eventually be effected, but, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has previously stated, these estimates are necessarily highly conjectural:

Under Clauses 2 and 22 (1), from £500,000 to £625,000.
Under Clauses 19 and 25, from £15.000 to £23,000.
Under Clause 20, from £35,000 to £45,000.
Under Clauses 23 and 27, about £3,500.
Under Clause 7 (if passed in its present-form), about £9,000.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Has any estimate been made of what will be saved under Clause 1, and can the hon. Baronet say when the Committee stage of this important Bill will be reached?

Sir J. BAIRD: I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice.

Mrs. G. B. MONTEFIORE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Mrs. George Barrow Monte-fiore, who, before the War, went every year to spend the spring months with friends in Florence, is not allowed, since the War, to enter Italy?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. and gallant Friend has already been informed that this is a matter of Italian administration in which His Majesty s Government cannot intervene.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we now to understand that any person of whose views the Government do not approve is not allowed to enter?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. and gallant Friend fails to observe that this lady had a passport to Italy, and it is the Italian authorities who do not seem anxious to receive her.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the advice of the English authorities
to the Italian authorities not to grant the visa was responsible for the desire to exclude her?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have made special inquiry into this case, with the result that I have stated.

DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS (PEESS REPORTS).

Sir THOMAS BENNETT: 71.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the character of the reports in the daily Press of recent divorce proceedings; and if, in view of these reports, he will consider the propriety of acting upon the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes that power should be expressly conferred by Statute upon judges to close the Court for the whole or part of a case if the interests of decency or morality so require or, alternatively, to order that evidence unsuitable for publication for the same reason should not be reported?

Sir J. BAIRD: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend's attention has been called to these reports, and he will consult the Lord Chancellor as to whether any steps can usefully be taken in the direction indicated by my hon. Friend.

OFFICERS MURDERED AT MACROOM.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION BY MR. CHAMBERLAIN.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I ask the leave of the House to make a personal explanation on a matter in which my conduct as a Member of this House has been challenged. My attention was called to a letter appearing in the "Morning Post," of Monday last, from Mr. R. C. Henderson, the father of one of the officers murdered at Macroom. A somewhat similar letter appeared in the "Times" to-day, unsigned, but very probably from the same source. The letter in the "Morning Post" quotes the concluding statement of an answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) to a Parliamentary question on the 12th instant as follows:
There is no truth in the suggestion which has been made in some quarters that
these officers were out for their own pleasure. They were proceeding by car in the ordinary course of their duty.
The letter then goes on to state that in the Debate on the Motion for Adjournment
Mr. Chamberlain, Leader of the House, stated that the officers were not on duty— that they had gone to visit friends—and he further embellished the falsehood by saying that it was difficult to keep officers and men in barracks for long periods, etc., thus deliberately deceiving the House of Commons and the public.
The House is already aware of the circumstances in which I was called upon to speak for the Government in that Debate, which arose unexpectedly, on the Motion for the Adjournment, and in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill). I had to gather my information hurriedly in the course of the afternoon, between 4 o'clock and 8.15. I saw the Chief of the Imperial General Staff and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland, who happened to be in London, as soon as they could reach the House of Commons. My information, derived from the Irish Office, was that these officers were not on duty, but had gone to visit friends. In the course of the conversation, I asked the military authorities whether it was right that these officers should have been allowed to go unprotected into a district which was notoriously out of control, and where the Provisional Government were unable at the time to exert any authority, and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland gave me the reply which I gave to the House—that it was impossible to keep officers or men confined for long periods to barracks. I was not fully satisfied with this explanation, and wrote the next morning to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, asking him to go further into the question with the military authorities. Within a day or two that question was settled by the decision to remove the troops from Cork.
From that day till I read Mr. Henderson's letter on Monday list, I had no idea that my statement was challenged. On reading that letter, I at once made inquiry, and I now find that the information supplied to me was incomplete. The officers, I am informed, were intelligence officers. They were not at the time deputed for any "special duty," but in-
telligence officers are technically always "on duty," and they were, therefore, on duty at the time that they were kid napped. The Irish Office had failed to understand the distinction between "duty" and "special duty," and had interpreted the statement that they were not on special duty as meaning that they were not on duty. My whole conversation with the military authorities, as shown by the letter I wrote next day to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, proceeded on my part on the assumption that they were not on duty, and nothing was said by others at that interview which could indicate to me that I was mistaken, nor—though a minor inaccuracy in another portion of my speech was subsequently pointed out to me—was I informed at any time that I had been in error on this point.
Since making inquiries, I have heard from the General Officer Commanding in-Chief in Ireland that to the military mind no discrepancy whatever is involved in describing an officer as "not on any special duty" and at the same time as "on duty."
The military authorities at the time of my statement and of the disappearance of these officers greatly feared that had I made public the fact that they were "Intelligence Officers on duty," it would have gravely increased the danger to their safety if they were still alive. Had this fear not been in their minds, I should, I think, have been furnished with more complete information.
I thought it due to the House, as my conduct was challenged as a Member of the House, to make this explanation. I only wish further to express my regret if the incompleteness of my information led me to make a statement which has obviously given great pain to the father of one of these officers, and may have given equal pain to the relatives of the other officer and the military driver who accompanied them and suffered the same fate.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that these officers were not definitely ordered to go to Macroom?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. They were not deputed for special duty, but as Intelligence Officers they were always on duty.

Viscount CURZON: Were they or were they not definitely ordered to go to Macroom?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, they were not. I hoped that was plain from my statement. May I appeal to the House, as this is a personal explanation, and on a personal explanation, it properly stated, you, Sir, have often ruled that nothing arises, if there are questions of fact as regards the employment; of the officers, I shall be much obliged if hon. Members will put them, after notice, to the Secretary of State for War. I have slipped into an error once because I, or those who advised me, did not appreciate the meaning of military terms, and I think the House had better receive its information as to facts from the Secretary of State.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the Leader of the House how far on the Order Paper he proposes to proceed this evening?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask the House to take the first four Orders on the Paper. If hon. Members will look at the next three they will see that they are, as I believe, wholly non-contentious, and I should hope that the House would be ready to pass them without difficulty I should not ask the House to sit late, or to continue sitting late, for those three Orders, if it be not the wish of the House to do so, but I should hope that they would be passed without difficulty. The first four I must ask the House to take.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May I ask why, in the matter of business, Scotland has again been callously thrown into the background? We were led to believe that the two Scottish Bills which were taken last week would be taken as first Orders—that the Allotments Bill would be the first Order to-day; and we expected that that would be so. Now, suddenly, ahead of them is the School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, an English Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman admits, is a contentious Bill, and these two Scottish Orders will probably come on very late at night.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reason for putting the English Bill first is because,
in the opinion of the Government, concurred in by the leaders of parties, it is desirable that the English Education Bill, on which the main fight is being fought, should be definitely settled before the Scottish Bill is taken. That is the only change that has been made, and I believe it will be for the general convenience of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That one additional day be allotted to the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Chamberlain]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 15, he will find that I have to put the Question without Amendment or Debate.

Motion made, and Question put, "That Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the Provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 56.

Division No. 229.]
AYES.
[3.50 P.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Fell, Sir Arthur
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)


Atkey, A. R.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Foreman, Sir Henry
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Forestier-Walker, L.
McMicking, Major Gilbert


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Forrest, Walter
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Barnston, Major Harry
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Macquisten, F. A.


Barrand, A. R.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Magnus, Sir Philip


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mallalieu, Frederick William


Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase
Ganzonl, Sir John
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Gee, Captain Robert
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mason, Robert


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Matthews, David


Bigland, Alfred
Glyn, Major Ralph
Middlebrook, Sir William


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Goff, Sir R. Park
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Grant, James Augustus
Mitchell, Sir William Lane


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Moison, Major John Elsdale


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Breese, Major Charles E.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Briggs, Harold
Gretton, Colonel John
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Brown, Major D. C.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Murchison, C. K.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hallwood, Augustine
Neal, Arthur


Burn, Col. C, R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Hamilton, Sir George C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Casey, T. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Cautley, Henry Strother
Harmsworth, C, B. (Bedford, Luton)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Chamberlain, Rt, Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Hinds, John
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. spender
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Clough, Sir Robert
Houston, Sir Robert Patterson
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hudson, B. M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hurd, Percy A.
Perring, William George


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jephcott, A. R.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Johnstone, Joseph
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Pratt, John William


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kidd, James
Rae, Sir Henry N.


Dawson, Sir Philip
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Remer, J. R.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Remnant, Sir James


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Elveden, Viscount
Lloyd, George Butler
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lorden, John William
Rodger, A. K.


Rothschild, Lionel de
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Rounded, Colonel R. F.
Sugden, W. H.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sutherland, Sir William
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Taylor, J.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Seager, Sir William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Windsor, Viscount


Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Winterton, Earl


Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Townley, Maximilian G.
Wise, Frederick


Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Tryon, Major George Clement
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)
Waddington, R.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Smithers, Sir Alfred W.
Wallace, J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)



Stewart, Gershom
Waring, Major Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Sturrock, J. Leng
Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis O.
Hallas, Eldred
Rose. Frank H.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Royce, William Stapleton


Ammon, Charles George
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sexton, James


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Irving, Dan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Banton, George
Kelley, Major Frod (Rotherham)
Spoor, B. G.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Kiley, James Daniel
Waterson. A. E.


Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Lawson, John James
Watts-Morgan. Lieut.-Col. D.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Lunn, William
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Briant, Frank
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Bromfield, William
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Cairns, John
Mosley, Oswald
Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Myers, Thomas
Young. Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
O'Grady, Captain James



Galbraith, Samuel
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Glanville, Harold James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Hogge and Mr. Kennedy.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Robertson, John



Question put, and agreed to.

MEASURING INSTRUMENTS BILL.

"to extent the power of the Board of Trade to make Regulations with respect to measuring instruments used for trade, and to amend the law with respect to instruments used in ascertaining wages, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL THOMSON; supported by Mr. Baldwin and Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame: to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 2nd August, and to be printed. [Bill 204.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]: Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Chester Gas Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords],

Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock (Consolidation and Amendment Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments: Reports to lie upon the Table and to be printed.

BRITISH: NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee 8.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,

That they have agreed to.—

Finance Bill,

Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee,) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Contributions by teachers.)

(1)As from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, there shall be paid by or in respect of every teacher who was on the said first day of July, or is at any time thereafter employed in recognised service and who was not or is not disqualified for the receipt of benefits under the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918 (in this Act referred to as "the principal Act"), by virtue of Section four of that Act, by way of contribution towards the cost of providing benefits under the principal Act an amount equal to -five per cent. of the amount of his salary for the time being.
(2) The Board of Education (in this Act referred to as "the Board") may, with the consent of the Treasury, make rules prescribing the manner in which contributions under this Section are to be collected, and those rules may provide for the deduction of the amount of the contribution from the salary of a teacher by or in respect of whom a contribution is payable, and for the collection of contributions by means of deductions made from time to time from any grants payable out of moneys provided by Parliament which may be applied directly or indirectly to the payment of the salaries of teachers, and for authorising the provisional collection of contributions from or in respect of teachers whose liability to contribute is for the time being in doubt and for requiring contributions provisionally collected but not in fact payable to be repaid.
(3) Any period of service in respect of which a payment of the contribution required under this Section has not been made by or in respect of any teacher shall be treated as not being a period of recognised service.
(4) All sums payable by way of contributions under this Section shall, so far as not recovered by means of deductions from grants, be paid to and recoverable by the Board, and all sums received by the Board under this Section shall, except in so far as they are authorised to be applied as an appropriation-in-aid of the moneys provided by Parliament for the expenses of the Board be paid into the Exchequer.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Home): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "July" ["first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two"], and to insert instead thereof the word "June."
4.0 p.m.
This Amendment, which stands on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education (Mr. Herbert Fisher), revives a controversy which took place when this Bill was before the House on Second Reading. The proposal in the Amendment is to alter the date upon which the Standing Committee decided, namely, that of the first day or' July to the first day of June, in order that the collection from the salaries of the teachers of 5 per cent. in respect of their superannuation may be made as from 1st June, instead of as from 1st July. The House will remember the discussion which took place on Second Reading. The Bill proposed to apply the deduction from the teachers' salaries in respect of their superannuation as from 1st April. Some discussion was raised whether there was not some implied obligation, either upon the part of the Government or on the part of the House, that the teachers should have no deduction from the salaries which had been awarded to them under the Burnham Scale, and upon a Motion which involved the appointment of a special committee to investigate the actual facts in regard to the matter, the Government were defeated, with the result that a committee was appointed to report to the House upon the question whether there was any obligation, expressed or implied, which we were breaking by what the Government proposed in the Bill. Immediately thereafter the Government brought in a Supplementary Estimate in order to provide the fund which it would be necessary for the Government to supply if the teachers themselves were not to be mulcted in 5 per cent. of their salaries in order to meet the charges in connection with their superannuation. The figure of the Supplementary Estimate, as proposed by the Government, was £575,000. That applied, of course, only to England, and it was calculated upon the basis that the fund which the Government would have to provide if the teachers made no contribution would be something like £2,300,000 in the year, or, roughly. £200,000 a month. When the Supplementary Estimate was presented there was an equally violent reaction to the previous attitude which had been adopted by the House. We were asked why it was that we were presenting this Supplementary Estimate at all. We
were told that if the Committee which was to be set up reported in time it might not be necessary to find any of this money. There were upon the Paper many Amendments to the proposed Estimate and, in particular, there was one in the name of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), who proposed to reduce the Estimate by £200,000. The Government accepted that proposed alteration in the fund which the Government had proposed to provide upon this basis: It was said to us, particularly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) who very kindly undertook the care of the Committee, that it would be possible to report within a comparatively short period. Accordingly, the Government felt justified in taking the view that it would not be necessary to provide more than a fund which would cover two months of the annual period; that is to say, that if we provided a sum adequate for the months of April and May, there was no need to provide more at that time.
It will be within everybody's recollection that we were adjured by a very large body of opinion in the House to provide no money at all, some upon the footing that we could date the proposal back to the 1st April, if we so desired, and others on the ground—I think my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) took this point of view—that when matters were further developed we should see what was our obligation. In the result, the House provided by that Supplementary Estimate the funds necessary to pay the State's contribution to the teachers' superannuation during the months of April and May. When the matter came before the Committee which dealt with the Bill, the Committee evidently took the view that it would be harsh upon the teachers to make the proposal retrospective so far back as the 1st June, and they inserted the 1st July as the date from which the teachers should become liable themselves to provide five per cent. of their salaries in respect of the charges for superannuation. It is that decision by the Committee which I now ask the House to alter and to make the proposal retrospective to the 1st June. What the Committee, in effect, did was to over-ride the expressed judgment of the House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No.

Sir R. HORNE: I do not think that there is any difficulty in arriving at that conclusion. Not only did the House agree that we should only make a money contribution adequate for April and May, but I think the House, if left to itself, would have gone much further. My impression gathered from the Debate was that many Members assailed us violently for bringing in any such Supplementary Estimate at all, and said, in effect, that while we affected to be people who had a real desire for economy we were adopting a practice which was designed to waste money. I do not think it would have been difficult, under the circumstances and if the Government had taken that course, to have got rid of the Supplementary Estimate altogether. I am absolutely clear that the House was not willing to spend more money than that which the Government ultimately agreed to, namely, £375,000, and that what the Committee has done in altering the date to the 1st July has been tantamount to over-riding the deliberate judgment of the House of Commons. Upon what ground can it be said that it was fair to do that? It is said that the teachers are taken by surprise, because they are asked to pay a contribution towards their superannuation as from 1st June, and that we ought in fairness not to make the proposal retrospective to a date further back than 1st July.
I ask the House to remember the history of this matter. Early in the month of January the Geddes Committee reported that until some settled scheme was arrived at the teachers ought to provide 5 per cent. of their salaries towards their superannuation. I think I may say without fear of contradiction that that report was known to every reflecting citizen of this country. I do not think that there was any document of which more notice was taken than the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure. I am quite certain that every teacher in the country knew that the Committee had reported in the month of January that they should not pay this 5 per cent. contribution towards their superannuation. I do not think anybody will contest that proposition. The matter did not rest there. I spoke in this House on 1st March on the very question with which we are now dealing in its relation to the Report of the Geddes Committee,
and I stated the deliberate intention of the Government which we were going to carry out—that a sum of £2,300,000 should by this method be provided by the teachers themselves towards their superannuation. I am perfectly certain that every teacher in the country knew of that, speech. Most speeches that I make go entirely without notice or recognition from anybody, but I am sure that speech, at any rate, received the anxious attention of every school teacher in the country.
In the month of March, the Estimates for the year were laid, and there appeared in these Estimates an appropriation-in-aid of £2,300,000, which was to be obtained by levying this 5 per cent. tax upon the teachers themselves. That was shown upon the face of the Estimate. When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education came to speak upon his Estimates in the month of April, he drew particular attention to this factor in the situation, and this item in his Budget for the year made it perfectly plain that it was the intention of the Government to exact that contribution from the teachers. In ail the first four months of the year, accordingly, this matter was prominently before the House and the country. It did not rest there. The discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill took place on 10th May, and the matter was brought prominently before every Member of the House, because it was the very subject with which we were dealing. Then, on 16th May, we had the discussion to which I have referred, and on 22nd May the House debated the Supplementary Estimate with which we are now concerned. I venture to say that in these circumstances it is perfectly impossible for anybody to contend that the teachers of this country were not made thoroughly aware of the intention of the Government. During these Debates in May I am sure that they were taking a very intelligent interest in what was going on in the House, and, particularly, in the Debate dealing with the Supplementary Estimate. It was made perfectly clear to everybody that not only was the Government of this mind, but the House was in a state of great anxiety, because they thought that the economy which they desired was not going to be achieved. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that nobody can
be surprised that we proposed to date the teachers' contribution from the let June. All the matters of which I have spoken took place before 1st June, and most of them long before 1st June. There is only one other consideration which, I think, requires even to be mentioned. It may be said that it: is difficult retrospectively to collect what you require in this matter. Even the 1st July is retrospective, and there is really no more difficulty so far us the let June is concerned.

Major GRAY: Oh!

Sir R. HORNE: It is only a question how you are going to spread the contributions over the salary of the remaining months of the year. I say without fear of contradiction, although my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accring-ton (Major Gray) has indicated a monosyllabic dissent from this proposition, that in practice there will be found no difficulty whatever in making this legislation retrospective to the 1st June. If there be any difficulty, there is equal difficulty in making it introspective to 1st July. I do not, however, think that there is any difficulty, because, after all, there are all the remaining months of the year in which the salaries of the teachers have to be paid, and I cannot imagine that the paymaster of salaries is going to have any difficulty, under these circumstances, in collecting the full amount which ought to be collected for this purpose. Accordingly, I venture to say to the House that that is a cogey which they need not fear. If we were to give way to what the Committee has done upon this question, then, assuming what is done for England will also be done for Scotland, the amount which it would cost the Exchequer would be, roughly, £220,000. I am perfectly certain that whatever the House desired before, they do not desire to forego an economy of that kind. We have made a considerable concession in loading ourselves with payments for April and May to the extent of £440,000. I think we should have had an excellent case for saying that since the month of January last every teacher knew what burden was going to be imposed on him. Certainly there is no case now for suggesting that the House should impose on the Exchequer a still further burden. On these grounds I move the Amendment
which stands in the name of the President of the Board of Education, and it covers the three first Amendments which are on the Paper.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman either deliberately or unconsciously misunderstands the attitude taken by hon. Members on these benches towards the Supplementary Estimates about which he spoke. A large number of people, myself among the number, considered that it would be more in accordance with practice and common sense if we discovered first what our liabilities were to be, and then afterwards voted the money. The real difficulty in discussing this Supplementary Estimate was that we did not know, we had not any information, as to whether a pledge had been given to the House whether we should be run in for £400,000,000 or £600,000. We indicated, in having to vote that Supplementary Estimate, that it was only being brought forward by the Government as a whip to chastise some of their own followers. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in putting before the House his case that the wicked Standing Committee attempted to override the House of Commons. He knew that the best way of proving his case was to attack his wicked opponents on the Standing Committee. I put the opposite point of view, that the Standing Committee, after hearing the case and discussing it exhaustively, by an overwhelming majority decided to insert July instead of April. They heard the evidence after the Supplementary Estimate, and everything else had been before them, and decided on July. I submit that it is flouting the decision of the Standing Committee and making work on Standing Committees more or less futile if, whenever a Standing Committee decides, after discussion, against the wishes of the Government, the Government are to come down on the Report stage, backed by their big battalions, and reverse the decision of the Committee.

Sir R. HORNE: There was a very small attendance at the Standing committee— only 21 out of 64.

"Colonel WEDGWOOD: They were the people who were interested in education, who took the question to heart, and they decided, I hope not only for themselves, but for the House as a whole, what the action of responsible legislators ought to
be towards this particular question. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that this was a retrospective legislation. No one objects to retrospective legislation more than the right hon. Gentleman, and he went through all the occasions on which the Government had warned the teachers that this was going to happen, in an attempt, apparently, to justify what is a flagrant case of retrospective legislation. It is not enough to say that the Geddes Report recommended it, that he mentioned it in March, April and May, and that the teachers ought to have had notice. The teachers have no right to take any decision coming from a Minister, but must leave the matter to the decision of the House of Commons later, after the whole case has been heard.
We are told that if the House votes for July instead of June it will mean imposing additional taxation of £220,000. What it really means is imposing taxation on the teachers of this country to the tune of £220,000 in addition to what they ought reasonably have expected, if they had been forced to pay this tax, on the passage of the Bill. This extra money is going to be paid by people who, on the average, are getting £300 a year, and find it very difficult to make both ends meet on that sum. They are all being asked to pay anything from an additional £l to £2 tax. I would ask the House at the same time to compare this charge on the teaching profession with the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman only a fortnight ago towards the Super-tax dodgers. They made out a case for delaying the Chancellor of the Exchequer in applying what everybody in the House considers to be a desirable change in the law, that it might affect certain people adversely, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer listened to their honeyed accents and decided that they had a case and not only did he not made the legislation retrospective though he would have been justified, but he postponed for a year the actual effect of the legislation.
The cost, not of £200,000, but of £400,000, at a time when the Super-tax dodgers escaped retrospective legislation, is going to fall, by a change in the law, on the unfortunate teachers with £300 a year, who are getting it in the neck, for there is no mercy for the teacher. Those seem to be very sound arguments in favour of keeping the Bill as it left the Standing Committee, after consideration by the
Committee, and for the House not to allow itself to be carried away by the specious pleading of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the teachers ought to have known beforehand what was about to happen, and that the Standing Committee exceeded its powers by overruling the House of Commons, when he is really asking the House of Commons to overrule the Standing Committee.

Major GRAY: It is quite in accordance with precedence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take charge of the Bill at this stage, for truly this is not an educational Measure but a Super-tax Measure, and I noticed that quite by inadvertence the right hon. Gentleman used the word "tax." I join issue with him at once. I believe that he misunderstands entirely the attitude of the House when the Supplementary Estimate was presented. My understanding of the House at that stage is this. They did think, or many did think, that this was a whip to chastise those who had defeated the Government a few days earlier, but we felt also much more strongly that the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate had not arisen, and it has not arisen now, and will not arise until the close of the year. My right hon. Friend has once or twice used the phrase "contribution to the superannuation fund." There is no fund. There has not been such a fund since 1918. This is not a contribution to a superannuation fund in existence or to a superannuation fund immediately contemplated. No such fund has been formed.
He contradicts himself two or three times in the course of his statement, because while he called this a contribution to a superannuation fund he at the same time remarked that this appeared on the Estimates as an appropriation-in-aid, which would be used for general educational purposes, and if there were a surplus in the course of the year it would go into the Treasury for ordinary national purposes. Whether it is April, May, June or July, the need for a Supplementary Estimate would not be apparent until February or March of next year. There has been no charge upon this £2,300,000. It remains exactly as it was, a paper entry. There is no money being used. It has not been taken for any educational purpose so far, and it is futile
to suggest that the £40,000,000 odd which appears on the paper as the educational estimate for the year, is already exhausted, and that the Government must come down for Supplementary Estimates of from £300,000 to £400,000. I hesitate to join issue with one who carries so many guns as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when there is nothing but a small frigate attacking him, but I challenge him to say has there been any charge up to the present on this £2,300,000 Appro-priation-in-Aid?

Sir R. HORNE: As I have been challenged, may I say that I do not think that the House need be misled in this matter. The State has got to provide for teachers' supperannuation. It docs not matter how you call it. A contribution of £2,300,000 is what the teachers are asked to pay in respect of the rights which they have got against the State in respect of superannuation. It does not matter how you express that in the account.

Major GRAY: That is a frank admission. The charges which are falling upon the State in respect of superannuation are being met from the general account. This particular item in the general account, this £2,300,000 out of the total of about £45,000,000, has not yet been infringed upon, but it might be during the course of the year, and if it were then would be the time for the Supplementary Estimates.

Sir R, HORNE: There are payments for superannuation.

Major GRAY: My right hon. Friend says that the teachers had full warning that they would be called on to pay a contribution. No one has ever denied that. If he will forgive me 'or saying so I thought the whole of that portion of his argument entirely irrelevant. What is of importance is the fact that when the Government introduced this Bill they made a blunder in making it retrospective, of which no one had any previous notice. Did any local authority or any teacher know before this Bill was printed in May that they would be called upon to make contributions in respect of April? No one knew it. The original trouble was the Government's own blunder in making the Measure retrospective, and it does not help us forward a single jot to say that the general principle was made upon the Geddes Report and was endorsed on two
or three, occasions from the Treasury Bench. The whole question is whether or not it is desirable to make this proposal retrospective and collect for past months. My right hon. Friend says he sees no difficulty in collecting for past months, but the Leader of the House did recognise that there might be some difficulty in collecting for past months, and in his speech, made when the Supplementary Estimate was before the House, he said that it was necessary to provide some money lest the House should consider that there would be serious difficulty in collecting for previous months.
There are three propositions with which I want to deal. The first is this: to collect over a past period will involve some difficulty and some self-denial on the part of the teachers, who are none too well paid even now. I suppose the average salary of teachers is about £300. They are not rich. I would ask the House to recollect, in dealing with this Measure from one end to the other, that they are not legislating for a section of people who can sit down and write a cheque for £100 and in five minutes forget that they have done it. The teachers are not people who are subject to Super-tax. They are people who are just on the border-line of assessability for Income Tax. Then there is the position of the local authority which has to deduct these amounts. That process of deduction would be comparatively simple if all the salaries had remained stable during June and July. But there are rising scales, and there are different amounts. Further, some of the teachers have already left the service of the local authorities which paid their June salaries. How are you to collect their contributions? A few have departed this life. How will you collect their contributions? [HON. MEMBERS: "They are a bad debt."] They are a bad debt for the local authority, but not for the Government. The Government makes its deductions in a lump sum from the grants to the local authorities.
The Government never have realised the position of the local authorities under this Measure, the heavy expense and the large amount of labour which a temporary Measure will impose on local education authorities. Take my own local authority, with 20,000 teachers in its service, all on a rising scale. The salaries change month by month in hundreds of cases. The
authority will have to investigate the amounts paid in June. It will have to ascertain whether the teacher is still in its service, and from the July payment it will have to deduct the amount for July and for June. The Committee upstairs went into the whole of these questions most carefully. There my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education trotted out this bogey of a Supplementary Estimate. He painted it in all the hideous colours he could think of and stuck it up before the Standing Committee. But the Committee looked at it carefully, and, having decided that there was no life in the animal, they did not get frightened a little bit. They said the Supplementary Estimate may or may not be necessary. If it be necessary, in so much as the Bill is limited to two years the Government would ultimately get the money. If it runs from June of this year to June of 1924, there is a two years' run. If it runs from July of this year to July of 1924, there is a two years' run. As a matter of fact, if my right hon. Friend were a modern Prometheus, looking well ahead he would realise that the longer he postpones the initial date the larger will be the sum coming into the Exchequer ultimately.

Sir R. HORNE: I am looking ahead. I am looking to the Committee which has been set up to advise as to a permanent scheme long before we get to that date.

Major GRAY: That is a matter for another House of Commons and another Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with, for that will be in 1924, after the General Election. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my argument, namely, that inasmuch as his contributions are founded upon rising scales of salaries, the amount which will come in in July, 1924, is greater than the amount which will come in in June, 1924. It will be considerably more and the Exchequer will ultimately gain. It is true that the Exchequer would lose a small amount this year, but, ultimately, it would be the gainer. I put these points to the House: There is the difficulty imposed upon the teacher. There is the difficulty imposed upon the local authority. I do not believe there is any substance in the suggestion that an immediate Supplementary Estimate is involved. It may or may not be involved. From what I know of educational affairs
up and down the country, I feel very confident that the total amount put into the Education Estimates this year, founded, as that amount was, upon the Estimates furnished by local education authorities of their expenditure, will not be ex ceeded, and, indeed, will not even be reached. If that be the case, the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate disappears altogether. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the amount that he budgeted for and the amount that he estimated for. Therefore, there is no substance in the threat of a Supplementary Estimate.
There is one further argument I would use, and I would commend it to the Leader of the House. If this is to be the attitude of the Government in regard to the procedure of Standing Committees it might be desirable to abolish Standing Committees altogether. There is a great deal to be said for it. If on every occasion when a Standing Committee goes carefully into the merits of a question, and by a substantial majority, and not a party majority by any means, reaches a decision, and that decision is upset here, no self-respecting Member of this House will ever serve upon a Standing Committee. It would not be worth the labour. This question was thrashed out by the Standing Committee. The Debate was of a non-party character. The Vote was of a non-party character. I believe I am correct in saying that there were 15 to 9, and the 15 were not the ordinary opponents of the Government, but included many of the Government's friends. They voted in favour of the July date. If one has regard to Parliamentary practice, to the desirability of making Standing Committees effective, and of inducing men to give their time and thought to the careful examination of Amendments in Committee, it is wrong for the Government to rely in this House on the large battalions which are scattered within the precincts in order to reverse a decision of a Standing Committee. This proposal, therefore, cannot be justified on its merits, and it stands condemned in regard to Parliamentary procedure.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken. I heard his original speech in the Debate that took place when this Measure was
first introduced, and also his speech on the Supplementary Estimate. I was one of those who thought it was not necessary to have any Supplementary Estimate, and I still think that if the Government had carried out the suggestions made at that time they would nor have found it necessary to have any Supplementary Estimate. The Government now wish the House to adopt the date of 1st June, instead of 1st July. Discussion of the question whether the House should negative a decision of a Standing Committee is beside the point. It is this House which grants the money and not the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee may negative the proposal of a Bill, but they have no right to grant money. With all due respect to the last speaker, I say that this House must have the last word in the matter. The hon. and gallant Member has told us that the teachers even to-day are not well paid. I, and a great many other Members think that at present the teachers are very well paid. It is true that before the War they were mostly underpaid, but to-day they are well paid and most of them admit it. As far as my experience goes with the teachers I have met, the majority of them, the sensible ones, are not adverse to this contribution.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing too wide a question. The sole question before the House is whether the contribution shall be dated from 1st July or 1st June.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I hope the House will follow the advice given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon. The teachers have been well heard on this question. They have put their case on each occasion that a Debate has taken place. The. House should not waste any time on the matter. Although I am against retrospective legislation, yet, as in this case a very large sum of money is concerned, I think the Government should make the date 1st June. I hope the Government will stand firm and ask the House to reverse the decision of the Standing Committee.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member who has just' spoken has fallen into an error—an error for which he is not responsible, because it is an error which the Government have repeatedly pressed upon this House, but none the less demon-
strably an error. This is not a question of economy at all. It is a profound mistake to suppose that we shall save money if we adopt the Government's proposal or that we shall spend money if we do not adopt the Government's proposal. The same amount is to be paid in any case. The pensions are not to diminish; they will remain the same. The only question is, From whom are you to get the money with which to pay the pensions? The Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that the question of how you raise the money has a bearing on the question of economy.

Sir R. HORNE: Surely my Noble Friend will agree that if someone else but the State provides a particular fund the State makes an economy by not having to provide it?

Lord R. CECIL: That is the kind of thing which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is always saying. I have never in my life heard a cruder fallacy enunciated. He says the State is not to provide the money. What is the State? The State is the taxpayer, and the money is just as much provided by the State whether it is paid by one set of taxpayers or by another set. This is the particular fallacy which sometimes hon. Members behind me are reproached for uttering as the crudest error in political economy. So it is. If you are going to say that the State provides money, then you are, indeed, on the way to a bottomless pit financially. Of course it is not the State. The State has not a farthing. The only question is, What set of citizens of the State are to provide the money? It is not a question of money at all.

Sir R. HORNE: Let me ask the Noble Lord this question. Supposing, instead of Jetting the people pay the cost of running the railways through their fares, the State provides the money—the taxpayer, to use the Noble Lord's phrase— is that an extravagance on the part of the State, or is it not?

Lord R. CECIL: No.

Sir R. HORNE: It can only pay from taxes.

Lord R. CECIL: The question was perfectly well put, and the answer is quite the same. It is no economy to transfer the burden from one person to another.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The teachers get the pensions, do you not see?

Lord R. CECIL: The economy consists in not spending the money—that is the point. It is a perfectly sound point, and the right hon. Gentleman really ought to know these very elementary principles. Just consider what you are going to do. You are going to say that the State—I use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase— is going to make a less contribution to the local authorities in respect of education, with a direction to the local authorities to recoup themselves by raising a certain amount of money out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

Sir R. HORNE: Who will get the benefit?

Lord R. CECIL: That is the operation. Supposing you said that, instead of raising it nominally by deducting so much from their salaries, you would give them authority to put an Income Tax on the teachers, it would be exactly the same thing. There would be no difference whatever. It is an Income Tax on the teachers. The right hon. Gentleman says that that is an economy. Of course, it is not an economy; it has nothing whatever to do with economy. The amount of money you are going to spend will remain the same. The only way you can economise is by diminishing your expenditure. Until the Government realise that elementary fact, we cannot hope for economy from them. That has been the fundamental mistake underlying the whole of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's dealing with this question. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a history of what happened on the last occasion. He went very elaborately into it, but the conclusion he drew seemed to me to be altogether at variance with the facts. He said that the House insisted on further investigation as to whether a pledge had been given to the teachers. Quite true. Anyone who has read the Report of the Committee will agree that the House was absolutely right in insisting upon that investigation. Evidently, the matter is one of very considerable doubt, and it would not be right for me to go into that at length now. In that state of things, while the inquiry was still proceeding, and nobody knew what the result was going to be, the Government, in a fit of temper, came down to the House and demanded a Supplementary Estimate for
£575,000. That is the fact. There was not the slightest ground for that Supplementary Estimate.

Sir R. HORNE: That is your view.

Lord R. CECIL: I am putting my view; I am not putting the view of the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir R. HORNE: I was only objecting to the Noble Lord saying it is a fact.

Lord R. CECIL: I say it is a fact. If anyone had observed the demeanour of the Lord Privy Seal, he would have seen it was the fact. The Government were very much annoyed at having been beaten, and came down to the House to have it out of somebody. They could best have it out of somebody by insisting on a Supplementary Estimate, so as to be able to tell the country how wicked the teachers were and how grasping they had proved themselves in the House of Commons. Some of us objected very strongly to a Supplementary Estimate on those terms. We said that the case for a Supplementary Estimate at all was not proved. No one knew whether any such Estimate would be necessary, and we demanded that the matter should be adjourned until we knew what the real facts were, so that we should know what Supplementary Estimate, if any, ultimately proved to be required. The events of this afternoon show how right we were. Here is the question still, and the House, in its wisdom, will decide on the date, either of 1st June or 1st July.
Leaving out, for a moment, the very interesting argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray), and assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right—in this respect, I admit, it is a very dangerous assumption—that a Supplementary Estimate is necessary, we still do not know what the Supplementary Estimate ought to be until the House has determined what date ought to be in this Bill, either 1st July or 1st June. Of course, we were right when we resisted the Supplementary Estimate. But to say that because we resisted it, and the Government, in order to avoid a defeat, hastily accepted an Amendment which made it practically impossible to vote against them—the Chancellor of the Exchequer will surely remember—to say that because that happened the House solemnly decided
then, as the right hon. Gentleman tried to persuade us, that they were only going to do this for two and not for three months, was the widest travesty of the facts. There was no thought of deciding that fact at all; no one suggested it. There was no thought of deciding as between two or three months. No such issue was presented to the House at all. The Bill went up to the Standing Committee. I think it is a most disastrous thing for the Government it to call on the House to reverse a decision arrived at in Standing Committee when it offends the bureaucratic mind. The whole point of a Standing Committee is to get a, decision on merits without very much reference to the Government Whips. You get a decision, also, by the men who have heard the Debate and not by the Smoking Boom vote. That is the great evil of the decisions in this House: and everybody knows it is the great evil. Hundreds of hon. Members come in who have never heard a word of the Debate, and they vote merely according to the way the Whips tell them at the door.

Sir R. HORNE: I wish they had heard this Debate.

Lord R. CECIL: I should be very glad indeed for them to hear it, so we are both, in agreement in that respect, except that the right hon. Gentleman will not be gratified, and it he reverses the decision of the Standing Committee it will be by a body of hon. Members in this House who have heard every word of the Debate and the whole discussion at length. It is disastrous if the Government should use its power in this House to reverse the decision of the Standing: Committee on a matter of this kind—a matter of detail. The matter was examined in the calm atmosphere of a Standing Committee, and it is now to be reversed on the dictum of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For my part, I shall certainly vote in support of the decision of the Standing Committee.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I wish to support the point put by the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray) with regard to the effect the decision of the Government will have on local authorities. It is all very well for the Government to decide in Whitehall that this money is to be collected, but it is quite another thing to throw on the local
authorities the onus of acting as the Government's debt collectors. While there is no mechanical difficulty in the matter, there is a moral difficulty. The effect will be disastrous on the local education authorities, which will have to get a refund from their teachers of the sums they have paid. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that this would be retrospective, whether the date were 1st June or 1st July, and that the difficulty of collecting retrospective sums would be as great on either of those dates I do not agree. I put it to him that the July salaries have not yet been paid; therefore if this Bill passes through all its stages at an early date, before the end of July, it is perfectly possible for a local education authority to deduct from the July salaries the amount which the Government decide has to be paid as a contribution toward the so-called Superannuation scheme. It is, therefore, a sound contention that you will avoid the difficulties of retrospective action by accepting the decision of the Grand Committee and not by reversing it, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested.
With regard to the question of the Superannuation Fund, surely the Government are not on sound ground. If you turn to the Civil Service Estimates, Class IV, dealing with the cost of the pensions, which it is estimated will be required to be found by somebody in the coming year, you see the figure of £ 1,860,000. That is the actual sum which, according to the Government's own showing, will be required in order to find the money to pay for pensions during the year. If that figure be sound, there will be no loss, and no need for a Supplementary Estimate if the right hon. Gentleman makes the reductions suggested by the Committee upstairs. According to the Chancellor's own figures, 5 per cent. on the total amount of salaries paid to teachers during the forthcoming year would amount to £2,272,000. This is without including the contribution which will come from technical teachers and art teachers, and that sum will have to be augmented to a certain extent. The right hon. Gentleman says it will cost £200,000 to make the concession granted by the Committee upstairs. Taking that sum of £2,272,000 you have a net loss of over
£'2,000,000. Yet the total sum required, according to the Civil Service Estimates, Class IV, for pensions during 1922–23, is £1,800,000. Therefore, I submit that there is no loss whatever on the pensions account if it is treated as a payment by the teachers for the pensions they are going to receive during the forthcoming year, and the right hon. Gentleman is not going to be out of pocket if he makes the concession which the Committee upstairs have ordered. It is altogether fallacious to raise this bogey of a Supplementary Estimate when more than enough money will be received to pay the claim made against the right hon. Gentleman during the coming year.
On this ground, and more particularly on the ground that you will be placing an onus and a responsibility on the local authorities which will not make for good feeling, I hope the Government's proposal will not be accepted, When the local authorities proceed, as they frequently have, to revise salaries, and when possible revisions ought to be adopted, you cannot find any case where they make the action retrospective. This is a matter which causes very considerable heart-burning and disaffection. At a time like the present, when feelings have been aroused on this question by teachers which it was hoped on Second Reading would be assuaged, it is very foolish indeed to seek to continue this trouble, when you had practically an agreed Second Heading, by going back on an undertaking which was understood, if not actually implied, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke.

5.0 p.m.

General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before we go to a Division, will carefully consider whether it is actually necessary to have this retrospective legislation. Whatever he may say, this is retrospective legislation, because if you have to make this deduction from the men's pay at the end of July for June and July, you will be making two months' deduction from one month's pay. I know, having served the Crown for many years on very small pay, and having subscribed to a pension fund all my life, how much I personally should have disliked such a policy. I did not quite follow the great financial ideas put forward by the Noble
Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). I presume that when, in this new party he is going to start, he is Chancellor of the Exchequer we shall see some very funny figures and weird things said in the House. I do not quite understand the form of economy the Noble Lord was going to suggest. Did I understand that he was not going to give pensions at all?

Lord R. CECIL: I thought my hon. and gallant Friend would have understood my argument, and I am sorry if I did not make it plain. I thought it was quite plain to say that economy consists in saving money and not spending it, and

that it is no economy to transfer the burden of the money you have spent from one back to another. That is the point.

Sir H. CRAIK: Transfer it to the people who get the benefit!

Lord R. CECIL: It may be a good thing or a bad thing to make a new plan of your taxation. That is a different matter; but you do not economise by rearranging your taxation.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think this point had better be further debated in the Smoking Room. It does not arise on the Amendment before the House.

Question put, "That the word 'July ' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 197.

Division No. 230.]
AYES.
[5.3 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hayday, Arthur
Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Hinds, John
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Ammon, Charles George
Hogge, James Myles
Robertson, John


Banton, George
Holmes, J. Stanley
Rose, Frank H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Royce, William Stapleton


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sexton, James


Barrand, A. R.
Irving, Dan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Jephcott, A. R.
Spoor, B. G.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Jesson, C.
Taylor, J.


Briant, Frank
Johnstone, Joseph
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Cairns, John
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Kiley, James Daniel
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Lawson, John James
Waterson, A. E.


Clough, Sir Robert
Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Watts-Morgan. Lieut.-Col. D


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lunn, William
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Wilson, James Dudley)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Galbraith, Samuel
Mason, Robert
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Mosley, Oswald
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Grant, James Augustus
Myers, Thomas
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hallas, Eldred
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Colonel Wedgwood and Mr. Kennedy.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Brown, Major D. C.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Croft, Lieut. -Colonel Henry Page


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Butcher, Sir John George
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Atkey, A. R.
Carr, W. Theodore
Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Casey, T. W.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Barlow, Sir Montague
Cautley, Henry Strother
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry


Barnston, Major Harry
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Dockrell, Sir Maurice


Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.J, A.(Birm.,W.)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Edge, Captain Sir William


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Elveden, Viscount


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Bigland, Alfred
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Birchall, J. Dearman
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Fell, Sir Arthur


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Briggs, Harold
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Foreman, Sir Henry


Forestier-Walker, L.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Forrest, Walter
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Seager, Sir William


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Gee, Captain Robert
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Moison, Major John Elsdale
Stewart, Gershom


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sturrock, J. Leng


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Morrison, Hugh
Sugden, W. H.


Hacking, Captain Douglas M.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Sutherland, Sir William


Hall wood. Augustine
Murchison, C. K.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l, W.D'by)
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hamilton, Sir George C.
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Neal, Arthur
Tickler, Thomas George


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Tryon, Major George Clement


Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Waddington, R.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Nicholson. William G. (Petersfield)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Waring, Major Walter


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Houfton, John Plowright
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Hudson, R. M.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Perring, William George
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Pratt, John William
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Windsor, Viscount


Kidd, James
Rae, Sir Henry N.
Winterton, Earl


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Wise, Frederick


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Ramsden, G. T.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lindsay, William Arthur
Remer, J. R.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Lloyd, George Butler
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Lorden, John William
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Younger, Sir George


Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Rodger, A. K.



Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Rothschild, Lionel de
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


M'Connell, Thomas Edward
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
McCurdy.


McLaren, Robert (Lanark. Northern)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Word "June" there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1). leave out. the word "July" "until the first day of July"], and insert instead thereof the word "June."

Leave out the words, "said first day of July." and insert instead thereof the words "first day of June nineteen hundred and twenty-two."—[Mr. Fisher.]

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1),to insert the words
or, in the case of a teacher who is, by reason of sickness, receiving less than full salary, the amount which he is actually receiving by way of salary for the time being.
The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the amount on which a teacher shall pay his five per cent. contribution when he is receiving less than his full salary owing to sickness should be the amount he is actually receiving and not the amount he would have received if he
were not sick. This Amendment is technically necessary if the teacher is to pay a contribution on the amount—

Mr. AMMON: On a point of Order. I beg to submit that there is an Amendment to Sub-section (1) which should take precedence of that just moved by the President of the Board of Education.

Mr. SPEAKER: I beg pardon. The hon. Member (Mr. Ammon) has handed in a manuscript Amendment, but it is not one which I should propose to select at this stage of the Bill. The point was debated in Committee and on other stages, and I do not propose to select it on the Report stage.

Mr. AMMON: I beg to submit that we have just considered an Amendment which was carried in Committee, and which, I should have thought, raised a far more vital point than this.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I point out that there is a very large feeling that the five per cent. tax on teachers' salaries is in excess of what is needed to
provide the actual pensions proposed? Indeed, the estimate is only £1,800,000, while the amount collected in taxation is about £2,300,000. It is to bring out that point, and to find whether the Government have any reasonable excuse for collecting in taxation far more than the benefits expected that we ask permission to move this Amendment, and that, if not 2½ per cent., some percentage should be carried more nearly comparable to the amount of cash received in benefits.

Mr. SPEAKER: That consideration was present to my mind, and I have heard it put forward and discussed a good deal on the earlier stages of the Bill. I had that in my mind when I came to my conclusion on the matter.

Mr. AMMON: Would you accept the Amendment if it were 4 per cent.?

Mr. SPEAKER: No. I think the Bill has proceeded to this stage on the basis of a 5 per cent. contribution.

Mr. FISHER: I have very little to add. I think this is an Amendment which will commend itself to the sense of justice of the House. It is clear that it would be a hardship on teachers if they were required to make a contribution upon salaries which they were not actually receiving. The Amendment does introduce some complication into the Act, because while the teacher contributes on less than his full salary he is pensioned on his full salary. No doubt the Committee which is to consider a permanent system of superannuation will direct attention to that point.

Major GRAY: While I warmly appreciate the object which my right hon. Friend has in view in moving this Amendment, I want to put this point, if I may, to him. He is providing here that the teacher who is receiving sick pay at a less amount than his normal pay, shall pay the contribution upon the amount actually received. So far, so good. But the right hon. Gentleman has a further Amendment upon the Paper providing that where the salary of the teacher does not exceed four-fifths of the amount which he ought to receive, that teacher shall be altogether exempt. I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman this suggestion, that the teacher who, through illness, is receiving, say, only half pay, is in a worse position during that period than the teacher who
is receiving four-fifths of the allotted salary, and it appears to me only just, that if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared, as the Amendment on the Paper shows, to exempt from contribution the teacher whose salary does not exceed four-fifths of the proper amount, he might well exempt from contribution the teacher whose sick pay is less than four-fifths.

Mr. FISHER: I think that is precisely the effect of my Amendment. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the Paper, he will see that if my two Amendments are adopted—the Amendment relating to sickness, and the Amendment relating to the four-fifths—the Amendment which he has himself placed on the Paper becomes unnecessary.

Major GRAY: I am afraid I do not quite follow that at the moment. I hope that it may be so. I gather from my right hon. Friend's intervention, that he would be prepared to accept my proposition, namely, that the teacher who is only receiving half-pay should be altogether exempt from contribution. Am I to understand that?

Mr. FISHER: I think that automatically follows from my two Amendments, if accepted.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong As the Bill stands, the man is only exempted in so far as his pay which he docs not get is concerned. But he pays five per cent. on all the salary he gets, although that salary may only amount to half.

Mr. FISHER: That is perfectly true, if you consider this Amendment alone, but if you take this Amendment with the Amendment which I propose to move subsequently with reference to the four-fifths, it will be seen that the case raised by my hon. and gallant Friend is already covered.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If that be the right hon. Gentleman's intention, it is all right.

Mr, FISHER: Perhaps it will be convenient to deal with that when I move my next Amendment.

Mr. ACLAND: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend here, and with my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, that the next Amendment only relates to salary, and not to what the
teacher may be actually receiving. The salary of the teacher will always be taken to be that in which it stands in the books of the local authority, and not be determined by what he is actually receiving. However, if the Minister really wants to do what my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, it undoubtedly can be done, and when we read the Bill as it comes out of this stage, we shall see whether it carries that out. I do not think it will, but it clearly can be made to do so. It is only a question of seeing that the wording of the Clause carries out the intention.

Major GRAY: May I be allowed to say that, unfortunately, this is our last opportunity of revising the phraseology of the Bill? If we were on the Committee stage, and could look forward to the Report stage, I should not be greatly disturbed. I merely rise to ask whether, if it he found that this point is not properly covered, the Minister will make an effort in another place to get the necessary alteration, because I am very much afraid that the words—

Sir OWEN PH1LIPPS: Are we not on the Report stage, and is more than one speech allowed?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. and gallant Member prefaced his remarks by saying, "If I may be allowed." I do not think he wishes to enlarge upon the subject, but to elucidate a point.

Major GRAY: I am not proposing to pursue a long argument, but there has been a sort of general conversation arising out of the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman, and all that I want to point out is that this word "salary" will be interpreted by the local authority as the fixed salary for the year. A teacher with a salary of £500 a year, say, might be absent for three months on full pay, and then for another three months on half pay, but he would still be spoken of as enjoying a salary of £500, whereas he was only receiving £250.

Sir H. CRAIK: Would not the matter be very easily settled to the satisfaction of my hon. and gallant Friend if, instead of the words "salary of the teacher," you inserted the words "salary paid to the teacher"?

Mr. FISHER: With all respect, all these objections are already met in my Amendment, which, I think, makes the point perfectly clear. But I am perfectly willing to give the assurance for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks, and if it should prove, when we read the Bill after it leaves this House, that an ambiguity still remains with reference to this, and that my intention is not given effect to by the terms of the Bill, I will see that, as far as I can, effect shall be given to it in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the words last inserted, to add the words
provided that the contribution shall not exceed the amount, if any, by which the salary of the teacher exceeds four-fifths of the full salary which the Board would be prepared in his case to recognise for the purposes of grant.
This Amendment is designed to give effect to an undertaking which I gave to the House when this Bill was considered on Second Reading. It was pointed out in several quarters of the House that it would be unjust not to take into consideration the case of those teachers who were receiving salaries less than those which they would be entitled to receive under the scale allocated to their locality by the Burnham Committee. Accordingly, when this Bill went to the Standing Committee, I moved this Amendment. To this Amendment an Amendment was moved by my light hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), substituting a proportion of nine-tenths for the proportion of four-fifths mentioned in my Amendment, and that was carried against the Government. As I pointed out on that occasion, the acceptance of my right hon. Friend's Amendment would involve an additional charge of over £130,000, and consequently, when the Amendment, as amended, was put to the Standing Committee, it was defeated, on the ground that its acceptance would involve a Supplementary Estimate of over £130,000. At the same time, I gave an undertaking that I would introduce again on Report the Amendment which I put upon the Paper when the Bill was in Committee, and I implement that undertaking now. The House will observe that there is no explicit allusion to the Burnham scale in my Amendment. I speak of "the full salary which the
Board would be prepared in his case to recognise for the purposes of grant. "The reason of this is that the standard adopted is not the Burnham scale, but the Burnham scale with certain alterations, mainly alterations in respect of carry-over, which the Board would be prepared to recognise for the purposes of grant.
The effect of this Amendment is, that any teacher who is getting 80 per cent. or less of this standard salary pays no contribution under the Amendment. Teachers getting 80 per cent. or over will pay only such contribution as will still leave them with exactly 80 per cent. The way in which the Amendment will work out in practice is, that teachers who are getting 80 per cent. will pay nothing. Teachers who are getting from 80 to about 84¼ per cent. will pay a reduced contribution, and teachers who are getting 84¼ per cent. or upwards will pay the full contribution. There may be some misapprehension in the House as to the exact position of teachers who are not receiving the allocated Burnham scale, but who are on what is known as the "provisional minimum scale." The average salary of teachers in elementary schools was £104 in 1918, when the Superannuation Bill was introduced, and when the Burnham scales are in full operation it will be £261; in other words, there will be an increase on an average salary of, approximately, 150 per cent. If we take £100 as the standard salary for 1918, £250 becomes the standard Burnham salary, and £200, or exactly double the 1918 salary, is the salary on which a teacher begins his contribution. Consequently, as a matter of average, we may say that no elementary teacher will contribute, under this Amendment, unless he is getting double the salary which he was getting in 1918. That is a very important point to bear in mind
We will pass from the position of the elementary teachers to the position of teachers in secondary schools. Their position is somewhat different. The average salary of a secondary school teacher in 1913–14 was £173. I have not got the figures for 1918. The ultimate position of that teacher under the Burnham scale will be £400: that is, approximately an increase of 131 per cent., and, as a matter of average, a secondary school teacher will not begin to contribute
until his salary is 84 per cent. in excess of the 1913 figure. When this matter was being discussed in Committee, it was stated that averages were deceitful things, and what was important was the case of the individual. I quite agree that is the important thing, the individual teacher. We are very anxious not to inflict hardship upon the teacher. The ground upon which this matter was discussed was, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, the great increase in the salaries of teachers which has taken place since the Superannuation Act was introduced. I think it would be unreasonable to ask for a contribution from any who have not received a considerable increase of salary since the date at which the Superannuation Act was fixed or whose salary conditions in 1908–14 were not of an exceptionally favourable kind. I think the Amendment meets the criticism founded upon the general deceitfulness of averages.
The Burnham scales are not based upon averages, but are applied at different rates to individual teachers, and the proposition inherent in the Amendment is that there is no hardship on the teacher who is getting 80 per cent. of the Burnham scale in contributing the 5 per cent. It is quite true there are many individual teachers who are not now enjoying a salary of 100 per cent. or 84 per cent. in excess of the salaries which they enjoyed in 1918. I speak in the light of the facts as regards the elementary teachers, and—from 1913—the secondary teachers. There are many teachers who have not, within that period, had additions to their salaries, or so much as these figures would indicate. What does the amount indicate? It indicates that the salaries of these teachers were on a more satisfactory footing in 1918 and in 1913 respectfully than the average salaries enjoyed by elementary and secondary school teachers. I do ask the House to agree with me in holding the view that no special consideration ought to be given to the case of teachers simply because they have not had the average rise in salary between 1918 and 1922; on the contrary, they enjoyed a higher rate of salary than the general body of teachers.
I submit to the House that this Amendment will cover the hard cases under the Bill. Under this Amendment no elementary teacher will he required to pay a contribution whose salary is not
double the average salary which existed in 1918, and no secondary teacher will be required to pay a contribution whose salary is not very largely above the average salary of 1913. When this Amendment was being discussed in the Standing Committee, objection was taken on the ground that the estimated cost of the Amendment, on a rough estimate made by the Board, was about £20,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) thought that that consideration was hardly worth introducing. I think £20,000 is better than nothing. In any case, in framing this Amendment I had not in view the figures as to how the Amendment would work out. I had in view the arrangement under which it appeared to me the hard cases could be met, and I believe the hard cases will be met in this Amendment.
It is perfectly true that the Amendment is not costing more than £20,000, but the moral I draw from the figures is not that the Amendment is not needed, but that the hard cases are fewer than I expected they would be. The small amount involved clearly shows how small is the hardship, and how few there are who are not getting 80 per cent. of the Burnham scale, and who, therefore, are not enjoying salaries almost double those which prevailed in 1918. The suggestion of the substitution of nine-tenths for the four-fifths, as suggested by an Amendment on the Paper, as I have pointed out, would involve a Supplementary Estimate of £120,000 in respect of the elementary school teachers, and a further sum in respect to the secondary school teachers. I earnestly hope the House will accept the proposals of the Government as being as fair as they can be to the hard cases which may arise under the operations of the Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "four-fifths," and to insert instead thereof the word "nine-tenths."
This Amendment stands on the Paper in the name of Members of the Labour party. To listen to the Minister of Education, one would imagine that the Committee upstairs had never come to a decision on this point, and yet one of the most notorious defeats on this Gov-
ernment Bill was that fateful morning when the Committee struck out "four-fifths" and inserted "nine-tenths" as the considered opinion of the Committee.

Mr. FISHER: They reversed it the next day.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, by the ignominious process of running away from their own Amendment. But whether or not they reversed it the next day, after the Whips had got to work and the big battalions had been summoned, I think we are justified in saying that a ease can be made out, even in the whole House of Commons on Report for an Amendment which, after consideration by experts, was carried in Committee. To listen to my right hon. Friend one would imagine that the insertion of "four-fifths" was really of some benefit to the teachers.

Mr. FISHER: To the secondary teachers.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But not at all to the primary teachers. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, when he was addressing the House on this very question on the occasion of these Supplementary Estimates, told us that special consideration would have to be made in respect of those teachers who were not getting paid on the Burnham scale. It was one of the concessions that he made then—either on the Second Reading or the Supplementary Estimates, I forget for the moment which— but it was the Lord Privy Seal who pointed out that special consideration was essential in the ease of these elementary school teachers. In this Amendment of the Government there is no consideration whatever shown. This Amendment upstairs was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne, who has a human and hereditary interest in the education question, and is an expert on the subject. I do not propose to-night to forestall the speech he will make on the question, but I do wish to make it quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as the elementary school teachers who are at present paid on the Burnham scale are concerned, this Amendment is quite valueless.
The facts, which really I do not think the House properly appreciates at the present time, are that the salary which the Board recognises for grant, and of which four-fifths are to be taken, is far
lower than the salary which is actually being received by the teacher. So that when you come to take four-fifths of the salary which is allowed by the Board for grant you will find, in the case of every elementary school teacher, so far as I. can discover, that that four-fifths is less than the pay the teacher is at present getting under the provisional minimum scale. So far then as the elementary teachers are concerned, this Amendment is simply camouflage—nothing else! It is intended to catch the eye as meeting the case of the elementary school teachers who are not paid on the Burnham scale. In fact it does nothing of the sort. Let me give the House two or three figures. They have been sent to me by one of the teachers in my own constituency, and that teacher says she has gone through them very carefully so that there may be no mistake. Mistresses at the minimum get £170 per year under the Burnham scale. Only £163 of that is what the Board allows for grant. Four-fifths of that is £130 per year. That is class mistresses, not head mistresses.

Mr. FISHER: At the beginning?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, at the beginning of their career. I am taking the same case right through. £170, £163, and £130, the four-fifths I have mentioned under the provisional minimum scale. She has already got £150, so that she is already getting £20 more than the four-fifths scale.

Mr. FISHER: What does that show?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It shows that the proposed concession in the interests of teachers paid under the Burnham scale is quite illusory. That good lady getting now £170 a year is required to pay £7 10s. annually in that four-fifths contribution. I think it is monstrous that a person getting a salary so small as that 6hould be asked to contribute in this way. But take the uncertificated teachers. These are the ones I really am most sorry for, because you find that uncertificated teachers are predominant in numbers, especially under those local authorities which are not adopting the Burnham scale. Take, I say, the uncertificated teacher. Take one woman in this case at the maximum, not the minimum, at the end of her career. She has £182 per year salary. Of that £171
is the basis upon which you estimate the grant. £137 is four-fifths of that sum. She is already getting, under the provisional minimum scale, £150. Here, too, there is no advance at all. You are calling upon them to pay £7 10s. in taxation in spite of the fact that at the end of their career they are only getting £182. Did you really intend when you brought in this Bill to make no distinction whatever between these teachers, who are paid on the Burnham scale and those not so paid? Then, of course, the teachers and this House would have had no reason to complain, and we should not have fought it and been beaten. But when the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the House both came forward with specious promises to the teachers who are not getting the Burnham scale at present; when you find the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not making express promises but implied promises to look after the teachers' grievances, and when those concessions come to be examined it is found that they mean absolutely nothing whatever to these unfortunate elementary school teachers, we have a right to complain of the attitude of the Government, and we understand better the attitude of a Standing Committee upstairs which accepted this Amendment, and recommended that it should be embodied in the Bill. This involves a sum of £130,000. As the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment stands it involves £20,000, which does not go to the elementary school teachers at all, because it is reserved entirely for the secondary and technical school teachers who are not being paid under the Burnham scales.

Mr. FISHER: Some of it will go to the elementary school teachers.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am glad to hear that statement, but we should like some examples as to how some of it will go to those teachers. I know their hopes were raised very high, but they have now been dashed away, and they do look to this House to do them a certain amount of justice. I ask hon. Members who backed the Government in the last Division to really consider this case. When this Amendment was first brought in they imagined that something was going to be done for the non-Burnham scale teachers. The whole House agrees to it in sympathy,
and it realises the hard eases of these teachers who are not being paid the same salaries as other equally efficient teachers are getting. Are you going to allow these people to be let down in order to save £110,000 a year? They are to be taxed to the tune of 1s. in the £ on their salaries in order that the President of the Board of Education may be able to face the anti-waste brigade below the Gangway. I am certain that this is not merely a question of salary or of £110,000 a year, but it is a question of whether you are going to instil into the minds of one in eight of the teachers of this country a feeling that they are not being fairly dealt with, and if you instil into their minds the feeling that they are being unjustly treated, then you are not going to get the same treatment of the children, because you will never get the best educational results from a body of teachers who feel that they have been let down by the Minister of Education.

Sir F. YOUNG: Does nine-tenths cover the cases which the hon. and gallant Member has mentioned in his speech?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It will cover about half the cases, and the rest of them will have their tax diminished under the scheme of this Amendment. Really the Government are making money out of this scale because, while their grant ceases, the grant to non-Burnham scale teachers is less, and they are getting more than the reduction from them in the grant paid to the local authority, because the teachers are getting less salaries. Under the Burnham scale the Government contribute half. If they are not on the Burnham scale, but below it. the Government still contribute half. The result is that actually these teachers not working under the Burnham scale authorities will contribute more than the Government will be granting to the local authorities in order to pay their salaries.

Mr. ACLAND: I bog to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I make no quarrel that my hon. and gallant Friend moved on Report the Amendment which I moved and which was carried in Committee. May I say that I am not very much moved by the figures which the President of the Board of Education gave as to the increases of present salaries compared with the salaries paid in the ease of elementary
school teachers in 1918, and secondary school teachers in 1913. Before we can see the real meaning of those figures there are certain things we should bear in mind. The chief thing is that, in the main, the increases in salary, which were overdue to the teachers before the beginning of the War, were postponed in very many cases until after the end of the War, and the teachers are only now obtaining the increases of pay which in most other walks of life were given during the War.
In all the years during which the agricultural labourer, and still more the engineer and the coalminers were getting increases to correspond more or less with the increase in the cost of living, the teachers were getting nothing. At the beginning of the War the teachers were on the point of striking because their salaries were so far below what they ought to have been. That strike was at once called off, and they Had to wait for years. I think they deserve, just like other people, two or three years during which they shall have something to correspond with their proper salaries, and something in addition to pay off the large debts which they have accumulated during the War by reason of the fact that their salaries were not attended to properly for some years after the enormous increase had taken place in the cost of living. I do not think it is putting the matter in the fairest light when the right hon. Gentleman simply refers to the large percentage of increase in the salaries compared with the old scale without showing the other side of the picture.
I think the Committee ought to have some idea as to the number and the proportion of the percentage of teachers affected, and then the different proportion of percentage of relief that is going to be given. About 5 per cent. of the secondary teachers will be affected. With regard to the elementary teachers it is much more difficult because, although you have 44 per cent. of the authorities which are definitely paying on a lower scale than that allocated to them in the Burnham Report, you have 12 per cent. who are paying on the provisional minimum, and we have only an imperfect knowledge as to what those authorities will do when the date comes when they ought to pass into their proper position in the scale. So far as one can gather, I think it will be found that somewhere about 8 to 10
per cent, of the total number of teachers in the schools will be getting less than the allocated amount under the Burnham scales when they are fully in force, that is, when the day of the provisional minimum has passed by. I am led to think that by the figures given by the President of the Board of Education in which he stated that the total amount involved by accepting 90 per cent. instead of 80 per cent. would be £130,000. That probably means the total amount involved if you make no deduction at all, when the salaries come below the Burnham scale, which would be something like £200,000, which is about 9 per cent. of the total reduction.
It is on that sort of reasoning I gather that about 8 per cent. are likely to be affected by this proposal. It is proposed to deal with these cases by an Amendment which will involve less than 1 per cent. of the total deductions. Therefore, you are dealing with an admitted grievance affecting from 8 to 10 per cent. of the teachers by a method which will only relieve them of 1 per cent. of the total deduction which is going to be made from their salaries. I think that point has been considered by the Government, because the Minister has admitted that for practical purposes this will only affect the secondary teachers. The right hon. Gentleman has slightly revised that statement because he has said that some of the elementary teachers may be affected. I very much doubt whether, if he sticks to his 80 per cent., we shall find that this admitted grievance, which he said he was going to meet in a definite way, will really make a difference of as much as has been stated out of the £1,750,000, which is going to be deducted from the salaries of elementary school teachers. In Committee I moved 90 per cent., and that was carried one day, but by a little oversight, of which I do not complain, the Amendment as amended was not inserted in the Bill, and consequently we were caught napping, and it was omitted. I think the more this question is looked at the more the House will conclude that if my right hon. Friend cannot accept the 90 per cent. which is now proposed, he ought to accept something in between, say 85 per cent. instead of 80 per cent., so that the teachers who are 15 per cent. below their proper place on the Burnham
scale would at any rate get some relief and would not have to pay the extra 5 per cent. tax, as it has been described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
6.0 p.m.
Let us see what the position was. The teachers were in genuine doubt as to the line they should take, and at least they said that, on the whole, they would not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, provided certain things which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington (Major Gray) made very definite were done, and with regard to which the President of the Board of Education made a really favourable and ready response. The first was with regard to the Bill lasting only for two years, which the Minister of Education promised at an earlier stage. The main point, however, was with regard to those teachers who were not getting their proper place on the Burnham scale. We all know that at that time the hon. and gallant Gentleman had the elementary teachers predominating in his mind. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had had some difficulty with his colleagues, and he had advised his opponents that they should desist from their frontal attack, and that there should be something in the nature of a generous attempt to meet the case of the teachers who are not getting their proper place under the Burnham scale. It will be in the recollection of the House that the Minister got up and said, "It is difficult, but we will do all we can to meet that point." To-day he has to admit that, with regard to these elementary teachers, the actual figures under this deduction will not exceed £1,000 out of a total of £1,500,000 to be deducted from the elementary teachers under this Bill. He is not doing anything whatever in fact to carry out the general impression he then conveyed to the House that he was going to meet the worst of the elementary cases as well as some of the secondary cases. With regard to his claim that this will mean a Supplementary Estimate of £120,000—he says he can manage his own miserable sum of £20,000 without a Supplementary Estimate, but that the 90 per cent. will mean £130,000, or £110,000 more than his figure. I understood him in Committee to state that the total cost of the 90 per cent. would be £130,000, whereas now he suggests it will be £150,000 odd.

Mr. FISHER: It is a very rough estimate.

Mr. ACLAND: I want to give some other figures and to try and make a suggestion to the House that will lead hon. Members to the conclusion that it is extremely doubtful whether it will be necessary to have anything in the way of a Supplementary Estimate if the 90 per cent. is conceded. The Department took £2,300,000 for Grants-in-Aid in the Estimates. Let us see what this estimate of £2,300,000 was based upon. The only exact figures I can find are those which were worked upon by the Geddes Committee—£2,277,823, or only £27,000 short of £2,300,000. That was the figure representing 5 per cent. of the elementary school teachers' salaries for the year ending the 31st March, 1921. That figure did not include the technical and art teachers, and it may be a consideration whether what is likely to be received from them may not bring the figure of £2,273,000 up to £2,300,000. This estimate was made a year and a quarter ago, but we all know quite well that the teachers in many cases have had two increments on the carry-over since then. Their salaries are higher since that time, and therefore the 5 per cent. on the salaries is going to bring in a larger sum than the Government has estimated. The elementary teachers' salaries have, I believe, gone up £12 10s. and the secondary teachers' salaries £15 since that date. There was only a gradual carry-over from the old scale in 1921 to the new scale paid in the current financial year, but it is quite certain that higher salaries by a considerable amount are being given this year than when the estimate was made, and therefore, according to my argument, the Government will receive more from the 5 per cent. than they have estimated.
They will not only receive more but they will have to pay less than they have put down in their Estimates to the education authorities, and, therefore, they will not have to come, in my opinion, to the House with a Supplementary Estimate. Again, the Board of Education is making great attempts to ration the education authorities during the present financial year with regard to grants. They are cutting them down. Further, many local authorities have given notice to their teachers, since these Estimates were framed, that they intend
to cut down their salaries. The County of Devon authority has given notice of a 15 per cent. cut, to come into operation next October. The diminution in the salaries paid by the local authorities has its effect a certain number of months later with regard to the payments from the Board of Education on account of those salaries, and my submission is, that during this year, either by the direct operation of the Ministry of Education in reducing the grants, or by indirect operation, owing to the actual amount of the salaries being reduced and the 60 per cent. contribution being reduced accordingly—first the greater amount received from the teachers and, secondly, the lesser amount paid by the Board than was estimated when they framed these Estimates in January, as a result there will be a balance which was not anticipated when the Estimates were framed, and, therefore, there will be no necessity for bringing in a Supplementary Estimate, even if this 90 per cent if agreed to. There is a stronger argument, even, if the right hon. Gentleman remains obdurate, for accepting a mid-way figure, say, 85 per cent. I do not think he can possibly face an audience of teachers ever again if he does not carry out what he said on the adjourned Second Reading Debate about his desire to meet the claims of teachers coming under the allotted amount under the Burnham scale. He is really only offering 1 per cent., when we take the secondary and elementary teachers' cases together.

Major MOLSON: I am in broad agreement with this Bill, but I would like to bring before the President of the Board of Education one particular class of cases to which I do not think his Amendment will do justice. It will not give any relief whatsoever to them. I wish to refer to the case of elementary teachers in my own constituency. They are under the Lincoln County Council Educational Authority, and they are receiving at present the lower scale—the provisional minimum scale. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that he wishes to assist those who are most hardly pressed in the way of salary, and I suggest that the particular class of cases I am referring to are among those who ought to be relieved. Some time ago the elementary teachers in the Lindsay educational area asked for Scale 3. The educational authority first offered them
Scale 1 and then Scale 2, but, as no agreement was reached, both parties asked the Burnham Committee to sit in arbitration on the matter. The Burnham Committee allocated Scale 2, but I am informed that that scale has not been paid, and these elementary teachers are still receiving the provisional minimum scale.
I have been given certain figures, and as far as my arithmetic enables me I have been trying to verify them. I cannot find any case that will receive any relief by means of the President's Amendment. Four-fifths will not give relief in a single case, and nine-tenths will only give relief to a very few. I think that as this particular class of elementary teacher went before a Court of Arbitration and a decision was given in their favour their case ought to be considered as a special case altogether. I do not think either of these Amendments will help them fairly, and I should like earnestly to ask the President of the Board of Education to consider their case separately. Some of the teachers assure me that if they were paid according to the scale recommended by the Burnham Committee they would willingly and readily pay the five per cent. I am sorry to say, from various letters I have received, there is a very strong feeling of soreness amongst this class of teacher. The President of the Board of Education has been very generous in all his dealings with the teachers, and I think he would like if he can to get rid of any sense of injustice amongst even a small proportion of them.

Mr. FISHER: I quite grasp the hon. and gallant Member's point. As I understand the Lindsay teachers have been allotted Scale 2 by the Burnham Committee and they are in receipt of salaries more than 80 per cent. of Scale 2 already. Consequently they would not benefit under this Amendment.

Major MOLSON: I do not know the exact figures. I only understand that both sides accepted the Burnham Committee's arbitration, that the decision was that the teachers should be put on Scale 2 and that they are now being paid only the minimum provisional scale. It seems to me that when both sides agree to arbitration both sides should honourably abide by it.

Mr. GEORGE BARKER: I rise to support the Amendment; moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I understood the President of the Board of Education to say in his opening remarks that the average increase in the salaries of teachers was 84 per cent. above the 1914 standard. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is exactly the increase in the cost of living, and, therefore, these teachers have really had no increase in salary at all, bearing in mind the purchasing power of money. Nevertheless, these teachers are called upon to make this contribution on the basis of four-fifths. Some figures have been supplied to me to-day by a teacher in my constituency, which show that 18 different classes of teachers would receive, on the average, under the Burnham scale, £350 per annum. Those teachers, however, at the present time are only receiving £300 per annum, that is to say, they are, on an average, £50 below the Burnham scale. I take it that the Burnham scale was set up as a fair and reasonable scale of salaries for the teachers, and it was considered by the Committee that they would not have to pay for their superannuation. The President of the Board of Education has, however, gone right across the Burnham Committee's recommendations as to salaries, and, although these teachers are on the average £50 per annum below the Burnham scale, he still insists that they should pay for their superannuation.
Some of these teachers are very wretchedly paid. I was surprised to hear it said by the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth) in the early part of the Debate that (he teachers vere very handsomely paid to-day. I do not think he really understands what the teachers are paid. There are some teachers to-day, women, who are uncertificated, who are paid as low as £90 per annum; there are some men, uncertificated, who are paid as low as £100, under what is known as the provisional minimum. Those teachers have to pay their 5 per cent., and the abatement that they get under the arrangement as to four-fifths is nil. Quite a number of these cases have been presented to me by a representative teacher in my constituency, so I take it that the figures are absolutely authentic, because they come from the teachers themselves.
I should like to join in the appeal that has been made to the right hon. Gentleman not to reverse the decision of the Committee. I think it is most derogatory to Parliamentary procedure to reverse two decisions in one afternoon.

Mr. FISHER: I am adhering to it.

Mr. BARKER: The right hon. Gentleman is adhering to a decision which, I think, was obtained entirely through a misapprehension. At any rate the decision was originally given in favour of nine-tenths, and then, by a little strategy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, it was reversed the next day. I think there is a very strong case for this Amendment, and, as it does not involve such an enormous amount, I think the Government might very well concede it.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) made a very strong case for reconsideration of this matter, and I have quite independent evidence that he is right in thinking that the Board of Education has exaggerated the cost of giving better treatment to the elementary school teachers, who will get no benefit whatever under the present scale. I do trust that the right hon. Gentleman will concede the 90 per cent., Realise I believe that otherwise a very burning sense of grievance will be caused. The limitation of four-fifths is going to be no concession whatever in the case of the teachers who are getting the smaller salaries. The whole case for this Bill seems to be based on the generosity of the full Burnham scale, and it is only on that condition that I feel it possible to support any reconsideration of the teachers' position until the stated time is reached. The President of the Board of Education has admitted that there is a strong claim for special treatment in the case of those teachers who are not getting the Burnham scale, but are only being paid the provisional minimum scale. That admission having been made, it is really not fair that this concession should, when it is examined, prove to be absolutely illusory. The elementary school teachers are paid less than the secondary school teachers, and these elementary schools teachers will get not the slightest benefit from the alleged concession which the Minister has put forward this afternoon. I do not grudge
the treatment which he is giving to the secondary school teachers. I think they have been in a very different position, owing to their small numbers, in regard to bringing pressure to bear on the local authorities: but I do think that, after the promises of the right hon. Gentleman that he would give special consideration to these elementary school teachers who have not reached the Burnham scale, it will be looked upon, certainly as not giving justice, and, perhaps, almost as a form of trick, if this large class of teachers is to get no benefit at all. The teachers throughout the country, certainly in my part of the country, where they are not getting the scale, have behaved, it seems to me, with great patriotism and fairness. They have not insisted on the fullest interpretation of the scale, and I do beg the right hon. Gentleman not to stir up discontent in this important class, or drive them to extreme courses by failing to implement what was supposed to be an agreement that these men who were only on the provisional minimum scale would get a special and very real concession.

Major GRAY: I cannot bring against my right hon. Friend the charge of reversing the decision of the Committee here, as I did with regard to the first Amendment, because I frankly admit that he was a little smarter than we were on that occasion. We got his Clause amended, and then neglected to get the Amendment added to the Bill. He brought up a few friends the next morning—nothing very much to boast about, because, although we had beaten him by two to one with regard to his Amendment, he only managed to get it rescinded by a majority of two. I only mention the figures to show- that the Committee did go into this matter carefully, even though, with next morning's round-up of the supporters of the Government, they just managed to get through with a majority of two. I am speaking from memory, but I think I am right.
I can add very little to the arguments which were submitted to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), who stated the case very fully, and, as far as my knowledge goes, with absolute accuracy. On the Second Reading, speaking with a sense of very grave responsibility, I put forward the question of special treatment of teachers in the non-Burnham areas as
one of the main considerations justifying the teachers in withdrawing their hostility to this Bill. I recollect that I ventured to ask the Government, through the President of the Board of Education, not to give the usual reply of an anaesthetic character, that the matter should be sympathetically considered, but to reply to the effect that he would do something substantial for teachers in those areas; and I am bound to say that I gathered from his words and his demeanour that he was prepared to do something substantial in the way of relief for them. On those grounds I refrained, certainly from hard words, and did all I could to secure an early Second Beading for the Measure. The position now is most disappointing. I should like the President of the Board of Education to find, if he can, a single elementary school teacher in the non-Burnham areas who will get a single penny. My right hon Friend opposite is prepared to give him £1,000 if he can; I cannot give him a penny.
I do not know whether we understand each other in these matters of figures, but I have had a set of figures worked out for me, and I will give the actual pounds, shillings, and pence, and not these very illusory percentages and averages. When my right hon. Friend talks about the salary of a teacher being increased by 100 per cent., I am afraid that some of my hon. and right hon. Friends think that the teachers must, therefore, be living in a state of luxury; but if the 100 per cent, is on a beggarly wage before the War, it has not brought them up to much. I will not detain the House for more than a few moments, although I have such a deep interest in this work. I recognise that I must not become a nuisance by speaking too frequently. Here, however, is a case where the Burnham allotted scale is known as Scale III, and a local authority is paying the provisional minimum. Let me take the actual minimum salary of a teacher under that scale. £182 10s. is what he should receive, and the amount which the Board recognise for grant purposes is £175, four-fifths of which is £140. The man is actually receiving £160, and, therefore, he is £20 in excess of the four-fifths to which my right hon. Friend refers in his Amendment. As a result, he gets no relief whatever.
It is a sufficient disappointment to the man to know that he is so far below the Burnham scale. He is nut being paid the scale which the Burnham Committee regarded as just, and which my right hon. Friend himself approved. Do not let us forget, in talking about these Burnham scales, that, before the Burnham Committee was allowed to publish its schedules allotting scales to different areas, they were submitted to the Board of Education and held up for some weeks, while the Board carefully scrutinised them, to ascertain whether they were the right amounts which should be awarded to the different areas: and not until they obtained the approval of the Board, and the consent of the Board was given to pay its quota of Parliamentary grant, were the schedules ever published and teachers and local authorities made aware of them. Therefore, although it is a Burnham scale, it is a Burnham scale with Government approval. Moreover, I know that not merely did the Board of Education carefully scrutinise them, but the Exchequer carefully scrutinised these figures, and knew what the financial responsibility would be.
I have shown that the men on the minimum scale get nothing. The maximum of that scale is £380. the amount recognised for purposes of grant is £353 6s. 8d., and four-fifths of this is £282 13s. 4d. The salary actually received—and a larger amount that man cannot. get in the year, let him labour all his life long—is £300 a year. It may be that. it is an increase of 100 per cent.; I do not know, but if it be an increase of 100 per cent. it comes up to the magnificent figure of £300 a year— not much to keep a family in respectability. What relief does he get? Nothing. The Scale II areas also pay, I take it, a provisional minimum and maximum. No relief is given. The Scale 1 area paying the provisional minimum—no relief to the elementary teacher, neither one receiving the minimum nor one receiving the maximum salary, and needless to say nothing in between. Take a Scale 1ll area which is paying Scale II—the same result. Nothing. A Scale IV area paying Scale III, result nothing. All my researches have gone to show that I cannot find, under the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, a single elementary school teacher in the non-Burnham areas who will get a single
penny of relief. Is that in accordance with his pledge? He says, "I found on inquiry that the grievance was not as great as I thought it might be." But whatever the grievance was, and he admits there are some grievances, I take it his pledge was to give some relief to that grievance. Let the grievance be large or small, he would do something to alleviate it. He does nothing.
I have had worked out for me the effect of the nine-tenths. Some people would imagine that large sums will be given to individual teachers if the nine-tenths Amendment were adopted. Let me take the first set of figures. The elementary school teacher receiving nothing under four-fifths, the man on the minimum, would receive relief of £5 10s., and the man on the maximum a relief of £15. In the next group the man on the minimum with nine-tenths would get nothing, and only £9 10s. if he be at the maximum scale, and there is not throughout the whole system a single case where the amount exceeds £15, and only one where it reaches £15. So the amount of relief in money as a charge upon the Exchequer is not great, but when you are considering salaries as small as these the relief to the individual is considerable. I think it would be the experience of all of us here that small injustices irritate more severely than a large grievance which has in it an element of justice. Where a man is already suffering under what he considers to be unjust payment for his services, unjust in the opinion of the Board and in the opinion of the Burnham Committee, and then you call on him to make the same, contribution as his more favoured brother in another area receiving the full allotment, can you be surprised that the feeling of irritation and resentment becomes deeper and louder? I am deeply disappointed. I had looked for something better from the large words and sympathetic demeanour of the right hon. Gentleman. After all his labours he produces this miserable little mouse. I do not begrudge the secondary school teachers. As far as I can ascertain practically the whole of it will go there. It is well earned and it is well deserved and I would even that it were more. But let him not delude himself or deceive the House. As far as the elementary school teachers are concerned,, I think probably something like 15,000 of them, there is not
one single penny of alleviation of their burden in the Amendment. I suppose this is the last word which can be said on the subject. No alteration can be made anywhere else. I want to refrain from saying anything which I might afterwards regret, but I tell my right hon. Friend I do not think the Amendment is a full, fair, or even an honest fulfilment of the pledge he gave on the Second Reading.

Mr. J. W. WILSON: I wish to add my word to the appeal which has been addressed to the Minister. The teachers have accepted the position, having agreed in fact to recede from the position they took up in the first instance, without any very definite promise from the Minister, in view of that promise whilst public opinion would not support apparently the teachers who are on the Burnham scale, yet where they were receiving less than the Burnham scale that concession should be made. That understanding having been come to I feel that in every way, from the policy point of view and from the justice point of view, it can hardly be worth the while of Parliament to aggravate and intensify the feeling which evidently exists in the ranks of the lower paid teachers that they expected to receive some relief, that Parliament accepted the idea that they should be differentiated upon in that respect, and actually working out the terms of this Amendment, do not get it. It will cause friction and irritation out of all proportion to the amount of money that is saved by the Education Department. Both from the present and the future point of view and from that of the mutual relations between the Board of Education and the education authorities and the teachers themselves, I ask the Government, having decided to make this concession, to make it with both hands instead of with one hand.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I was very much impressed with the speech of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) and subsequent speakers. I should like to ask the Minister of Education if it is a fact that under the Amendment none of the worst paid elementary teachers will receive any consideration at all. Certainly that is not what I understood was to be the arrangement. I certainly understood they were to get some benefit under this Amendment. The sum involved is very small. The irritation
would be very great and a sense of injustice would prevail. I hope if I am not right, and these elementary teachers will receive something, the right hon. Gentleman will say so. I have no desire to vote against the Government, but if all the speeches which have been made on the subject are correct and they will not receive anything I shall be reluctantly compelled to vote against them.

Mr. T. THOMSON: It is significant that every speech which has been made on this Amendment has been in favour of it. No one has risen to support the attitude which the Minister foreshadowed when he was moving his own Amendment. The reason the Minister gave the Committee upstairs, which he has repeated to-day, for refusing a more sympathetic consideration for the proposal of the Amendment was that it would require a Supplementary Estimate. Is that really the case? The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) has demonstrated that there is a considerable margin of possibility that the estimates which the Minister submitted will not be verified. But apart from that. may I repeat some figures I gave earlier, which the Minister did not refer to in his reply, with regard to the actual cost involved. Reference has been made to this as being a superannuation scheme. I think we ought to get out of our heads entirely the idea that it is anything of the sort. There is no superannuation scheme at all concerned in the matter. In the past grants have been made from the Exchequer to pay the teachers' pensions as they have fallen due. That will continue during the next two years until the Committee has reported upon a scheme which is to be a superannuation scheme. What we are considering to-day is merely a temporary arrangement which is to carry on the system of pensions which has been in existence for a series of years until a proper superannuation fund has been established on a sound acturial basis and therefore the figure which the Minister has already shown in the Civil Service Estimates, requiring a contribution to meet pensions which will have to be paid in the forthcoming year, a sum amounting to £1,860,000, will be more than met by the 5 per cent. which he is going to get on the salaries to be paid to the teachers and he can well afford to make this concession, even though it be
£120,000, and still balance his account. That is to say, that the £1,860,000 which he will have to pay to the teachers, according to his own figures, during the coming year in the way of pensions will be provided for by the 5 per cent., which is £2,227,000 less the £130,000, which we ask him to concede on this Amendment. He will have over £2,000,000 to meet a charge of £1,860,000, and therefore it is not really correct to say that he will have to come for a Supplementary Estimate, because the sums he will collect from the teachers will more than provide for the sums he will pay the teachers, even if he makes this, concession. I join with others in making the appeal that the sympathetic words which he gave on the Second Reading, words which enabled the Second Reading to be carried almost unanimously, shall be implemented by tangible proof, by consenting to the Amendment, whereby elementary teachers who are at present practically excluded from the benefit of the Amendment he has foreshadowed will receive something, and will realise that his sympathy is not merely words but is something tangible.

Mr. AMMON: As a member of the largest education committee in the country, the London County Council, and a member of the Teaching Staff Sub-committee, which has to do specifically with administering teachers' salaries, etc., I shall be very much relieved and enlightened if the Minister can show us, even in London, how the elementary teachers are going to benefit one penny by the Amendment he has moved. If that is so, it is evident what will happen in the smaller areas. It has been pointed out already that there is not a superannuation fund in the right sense of the word being formed. Now we are offered opportunity of relief, which in fact gives no relief whatever to any single teacher in the London service, and if it does not do that, it is not going to do it in any other education service. Surely that is wholly at variance with the speech the right hon. Gentleman made from (hat Box a few-days ago. We are getting a little tired of telling the Government "this is another broken pledge." We expect right hon. Gentlemen to 6tand by their words and substantiate the statements they make. We have had speeches from hon. Members who are members of education com- mittees and know first-hand the adminis-
tration of the Act, and in not one instance has there been any evidence forthcoming that there will be any relief whatever under this Amendment to teachers in elementary schools. Surely, if that is the case, the right hon. Gentleman could concede this small point and honour his own promise that he gave only a few days ago. I hope that, regardless of party, hon. Members will demonstrate their disapproval of this sort of thing, and show that they expect that promises made will be honoured in the act as well as in the word.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I have pledged myself, as strongly as I ever pledged myself to anything, to support this Government on measures of economy, and if they had, in the first instance, declined to given any concession, although I think it would have been rather unfair, no doubt I should have supported them. What is the position in which some of us who represent parts of the country where the Burnham scale does not apply are placed? We have been able to tell these teachers that they are going to get a concession and relief in these particular cases. I am told by the teachers, and it has been repeated by Member after Member to-day, that under the Government Amendment that is not the case, that it is a, mere empty form, and that it is giving no concession whatever. So far as I am concerned, that is a great strain upon my loyalty, and unless the Government are able to prove substantially that this is going to be a real benefit to the bulk of those who are not receiving the full Burnham scale, I shall, with the greatest regret, have to vote in favour of the Amendment moved from the other side of the House.

Mr. FISHER: Perhaps it may be desirable that I should offer a few observations upon the Debate. In the first place, let me say a few words in the subject of the Supplementary Estimate. I have been assured by optimists on the other side of the House that the acceptance of the nine-tenths Amendment will not involve me in a Supplementary Estimate. I wish I felt equally confident. I have been told that we are taking already more money in the shape of superannuation levy than will be needed to meet the current expenses of our superannuation scheme in the financial year. It is true that we are budgeting for
an Appropriation-in-Aid originally of £2,300,000, and the Estimate of the Board was formed upon the supposition that that £2,300,000 would be required. Now I am told that the £2,300,000 is in excess of the cost of the administration of the pension scheme during the current year. It is true that the cost was originally estimated at £1,860,000, but since that estimate was made, owing to accelerated retirements, we have to provide another £200,000, and we may still have to provide another £400,000. I am by no means confident as are the critics that we shall not require that Supplementary Estimate.
Therefore, when we consider the question of the nine-tenths, we must act upon the hypothesis that it is more likely than not to land us in a Supplementary Estimate of £150,000. I cannot pledge myself to that figure. It is possible that economies may be effected in other parts of the Bill; but acting upon my responsibility as President of the Board of Education, and after having received the best advice I could get, I am advised that we ought to look forward to an additional Supplementary Estimate of something like £120,000 if we accept the Amendment which has been moved from the other side. That is, therefore, the first proposal which ought, in all fairness, to be put before the House. Is the House willing to take a course which will probably land us into an Estimate of that dimension?
Everybody admits that there was no formal pledge, but I quite acknowledge that I did tell the House that I would investigate the case of these teachers and see if I could not bring forward some proposals to meet their case. We gave the best thought that we could to this problem, and it is not a very pleasant problem. In the first place, we wanted to put forward a proposal which would be easy to work, which would not involve us in great administrative difficulties, and, in the second place, would not be too costly, and, in the third place, would deal with the hard cases. When the four-fifths proposal was first made, I own that I thought it would be more costly than it has proved to be. What is the reason why this four-fifths proposal has not cost more, and what is the reason why it does not bring what is called relief to the great body of teachers in the non-Burnham scale areas. The reason is that there is
a very small interval between the Burnham scale salary which ought to be paid in those areas and the salaries of the provisional minimum scale which are paid in those areas. I have made a calculation in respect of 39 areas which are on the provisional minimum scale, and if you take the average salary which is now being paid to teachers in those areas you will find that it amounts to £211. If you take the average salary which would be paid if the allocated scale was in operation, it would amount to £233. The difference on the average salary is £22 between the salary on the allocated Burnham scale and the salary which is actually being received.
I am told that no relief is given, and the case of London has been cited. It is said that no relief is given in London. Is the House certain that if my Amendment is accepted no relief will be given to London teachers? The London salaries are due for revision next year. Are we certain that the scale will be maintained; Are we certain that there may not be, in fact, a divergence? Are we certain that the scales will not be lowered in other parts of the country? Therefore, does not this method give a very valuable guarantee to teachers that they will not, in that event, be called upon to make a contribution? I am not very much impressed by the argument that this Amendment does not actually put money into the pockets of elementary teachers in the affected areas. I am relieved in a sense to find that it does not, and for this reason, that it shows very clearly that the salaries in those areas are higher than one would reasonably expect. It shows very clearly that the divergence between those salaries and the salaries on the allocated Burnham scale is slighter than might be expected. I still maintain that the concession which I have offered does cover the hard cases, and if it is not found so valuable as might be expected at the present time, it may very well

prove to be of great value to elementary teachers before the two years are out. That is a consideration which ought not to be left out of account.

Finally, I do think that when we consider this Amendment we ought not to consider it from the point of view of the money which it is going to bring to the teachers in those areas. We ought to consider, first of all, the question of what salaries the teachers are actually receiving in those areas, how far those salaries have been increased since: the Super annuation Act was passed, what is the divergence between those salaries and the salaries under the allocated Burnham scale, and when the whole of these facts are considered it will be seen that the Government is making a very fair con cession. I claim that since I have been at the Board of Education I have shown no lack of consideration for the interests of the teaching profession. My first act on going to the Board was to revise the system of grants for the express purpose of enabling the local education authorities to pay adequate salaries to the teachers. I believe that sound educational policy demands that the teachers should be on an altogether higher scale of pay than was the case previously, and the result of the policy pursued by the Government in the last five years has been that the teaching profession has been raised out of the pit, and has been placed on an altogether higher level of comfort and prosperity than they had ever before experienced. I do not think that when the House looks at the Government proposals as a whole, in connection with what has already been achieved, that they will come to the conclusion that the teaching profession has been treated ungenerously, or that the teachers have any substantial grievance against the Government.

Question put, "That the word 'four-fifths ' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 171: Noes, 93.

Division No. 231.]
AYES.
[7.0 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Buckley, Lieut. Colonel A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)


Atkey, A. R.
Birchall, J. Dearman
Carr, W. Theodore


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Casey, T. W.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Brassey, H. L. C.
Cautley, Henry Strother


Barlow, Sir Montague
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cayzer. Major Herbert Robin


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Briggs. Harold
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Barnston, Major Harry
Brown, Major D. C.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Prescott, Major Sir W. H.


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Rae, Sir Henry N.


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ramsden, G. T.


Clough, Sir Robert
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Raid, D. D.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Johnstone, Joseph
Remnant, Sir James


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Kidd, James
Rothschild, Lionel de


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lloyd, George Butler
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Seager, Sir William


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lorden, John William
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Lowther. Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Simm, M. T.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
W'Connell, Thomas Edward
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Elveden, Viscount
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Stewart, Gershom


Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Macquisten, F. A.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Fell, Sir Arthur
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Sugden, W. H.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Harbert A. L.
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Sutherland, Sir William


Forestier-Walker, L.
Moison, Major John Elsdale
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Forrest, Walter
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Gee, Captain Robert
Morrison. Hugh
Tickler, Thomas George


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Tryon, Major George Clement


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Murchison, C. K.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Neal, Arthur
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Gregory, Holman
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Gretton, Colonel John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Williams, c (Tavistock)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Winterton, Earl


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nield, Sir Herbert
Wise, Frederick


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Wolmer, Viscount


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Perring, William George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Philippe, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray



Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pratt, John William
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Hallas, Eldred
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hamilton, Sir George C.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Ammon. Charles George
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Armitage. Robert
Hayday, Arthur
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Astbury, Lieut,-Com. Frederick W.
Hayward, Evan
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Banton, George
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hills, Major John Waller
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwichl


Barrand, A. R.
Hinds, John
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hogge, James Myles
Robertson, John


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Holmes, J. Stanley
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Briant, Frank
Irving, Dan
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Bromfield, William
Jephcott, A. R.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cairns, John
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Spoor, B. G.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Kenyon, Barnet
Swan, J. E.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Lawson, John James
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davison. J. E. (Smethwick)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Waddington, R.


Doyle. N. Grattan
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, G. {Norfolk, South)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothlan)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Foreman, Sir Henry
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham. S.)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Rossi
Windsor, Viscount


Glanville, Harold James
Myers, Thomas
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)



Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
O'Grady, Captain James
Colonel Wedgwood and Mr-Kennedy.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson)—in Sub-section (1), after the words last inserted, to add the words
Provided that the contributions shall not exceed the amount, if any, by which the salary of the teacher exceeds nine-tenths of the full salary which the Board would he, prepared in his case to recognise for the purposes of grant"—
deals with a matter already settled. A further Amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst)—in Sub-section (1), after the words last inserted, to add the words
Provided that recognised service for the purpose of the principal Act and of this Act shall be deemed to include such qualifying service, if any, as a teacher may have previously served in State-aided schools in Ireland "—
is out of order. It would impose a charge, because it would bring a new body of persons under the principal Act. The Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray)—in Sub-section (1), after the words last inserted, to insert the words
Provided that in the case of a teacher, who by reason of sickness is receiving less than four-fifths of his approved salary, no such contribution shall be required"—
has already been settled.

Major GRAY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the words last inserted, to add the words
Provided further that no contribution shall be required from a teacher who, before the passing of this Act, has given notice to his employers, in accordance with the terms of his contract of service, of his intention to retire from the teaching service in order to accept the benefits of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918.
I wish to provide that no contribution shall be required from a teacher who gives notice that he proposes at once to leave the teaching profession and to draw his superannuation allowance. This would operate, in regard to elementary school teachers, in periods of one month or three months, whether the man be an assistant teacher or a head teacher. In the case of secondary school teachers, it would operate for a period of one term. It is very undesirable that those who are about to leave the teaching profession at once should be called upon to make this contribution. I am bound to admit,
however, that in moving the Amendment I have another object in view. I am very anxious to accelerate the rate of retirement amongst the aged teachers, in order to absorb a large number of young men and young women who, having been coaxed into training colleges, now find themselves without employment. It would be to the advantage of the personnel of the teaching profession that this should be done. The Amendment does not involve a very large expenditure, and it seems undesirable to collect three or four months' contributions from these people and then to return them. I submit that the Amendment ought to meet with the right hon. Gentleman's approval.

Mr. WATERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. FISHER: Although it is perfectly true, as my hon. and gallant Friend has observed, that this is not a costly Amendment, nevertheless I hope that on consideration he will not press it. What is it that he proposes? The proposal, as I understand it, is that the teacher who gives notice on 1st June, let us say, to terminate his employment on 31st August, on the ground that he will be pensionable on 31st August, should pay no contribution in respect of the period from 1st June to 31st August. Why should such a teacher be relieved from the obligation of paying for that period? He will be receiving a salary during those months, and that salary will be pensionable salary. Why, then, should he be exempted from the duty of paying contributions? My hon. and gallant Friend has suggested that retirement would be accelerated if the Amendment were accepted. I quite agree it is very desirable to find employment as soon as possible for the young men and women coming out of the training colleges. It is a matter giving me very earnest consideration, but I can. assure him that retirement is being accelerated very greatly; in fact, so greatly that already our Estimate for expenditure on account of superannuation for the current financial year has been exceeded by £200,000. Consequently, I do not think that any fresh filip is necessary to secure this end. If you look at the position of the teacher himself, it is the old teacher, who is just about to retire, who will be receiving the greatest proportionate benefit in respect
of his contribution. He is, from that point of view, the very last teacher who should be exempted from making a contribution in respect to his superannuation benefits. I hope, therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: A manuscript Amendment has been handed in by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raff an). That, also, is out of order, because it would need a Money Resolution, and would impose a charge.

Mr. RAFFAN: On a point of Order. I should like to draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that the Amendment simply proposes that the teachers should receive back their contributions.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not what the Amendment does. It proposes that a woman may retire at an earlier age than is provided under the original Act. Clearly, that would bring a larger number at an earlier period upon the Exchequer, which provides the superannuation. In that way it must impose a charge.

Mr. RAFFAN: I do not wish to argue the matter, but, as I understand the object of the Amendment, it is not that the teacher should be able to claim a pension at the age of 55. At present she may retire, with the consent of the local authority, and she then receives back her contributions. My proposal would enable her to retire at her own option.

Mr. SPEAKER: The words of the Amendment are
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the principal Act any teacher being a woman may, at her option, retire at the age of fifty-five.
Those words are either superfluous, or they impose a charge.

CLAUSE 2.—(Repayment of contributions in certain, cases.)

(1) If any teacher satisfies the Board that it is impossible for him by reason of his age to complete before attaining the age of sixty-five years such number of years of recognised or qualifying service as are necessary under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section one of the principal Act to qualify him at that age for an annual superannuation allowance under that Act, or that he is not a British subject, he shall, as from the date on which he so satisfies the Board, cease to
be a person by or in respect of whom contributions are payable under this Act, and any person who so satisfies the Board shall thereupon become disqualified for the receipt of any benefits whatsoever under the principal Act, and be entitled to repayment of a sum equal to the aggregate amount of any such contributions previously paid by or in respect of him after deducting any sums previously received by him by way of benefit under the principal Act.

(4) Where a teacher dies without having received any benefits under the principal Act, and without having received payment of contributions under this Act, his legal personal representatives shall, if a death gratuity is not payable to them under the principal Act, be entitled to the payment of a sum equal to the aggregate amount of any contributions paid by or in respect of the teacher under this Act.

Major GRAY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Act" ["that Act or"], to insert the words
or if he has satisfied the Board that by reason of illness or physical defect consequent on War service he has been disqualified for a death gratuity under the principal Act.
I hope to have better fortune with this Amendment than with the last, as it -will appeal to a wider circle. Under Clause 2 if a teacher satisfies the Board that he will be unable to obtain a pension by reason of the fact that he will not be able to serve the required number of years, as from the date when he so satisfies the Board, he will not be required to make contributions under this Bill. I ask that that provision shall be extended to a small number of ex-service teachers who, having contracted illness during the War and as a consequence of the War, are unable to qualify for the death gratuity which is payable in the case of healthy members of the teaching profession, such a man, if he can manage to survive to the age of 65, can draw a superannuation allowance, but owing to the fact that on the 1st of April a couple of years ago he was in such a state of health, due to War service, that he could not obtain a clean medical certificate, he is now and for all time disqualified from the receipt of a death gratuity. The death gratuity payable under the main Act is a year's salary, that goes to the widow and children in the event of a man's death. The unfortunate ex-service man—and I have a bigger sympathy for him than for any single teacher in the whole profession-—went up the moment that there was a call to the Colours, a
strong, vigorous young man, and he came out broken in health, and rejoined the teaching profession, and he lives on year after year with the certainty that in the event of death there is no year's salary for his widow and children, whereas the shirker, the coward who remained away from the Colours and avoided disease and disability may have the full benefit of the Superannuation Act. The very least we can do in fulfilment of the very many professions of sympathy with the ex-service man, which we have all made, is to give this slight benefit. It is not much in money, but it would be regarded as an earnest of sincere sympathy. I hope that the House will support me in appealing to the Government to grant this very small concession. I have not provided myself with a seconder because I feel that the whole House will second it.

Mr. WATERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. FISHER: I need hardly say that in common with every other Member of the House I have the fullest sympathy with the case contemplated in my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, but I think that that Amendment is not conceived in the interests of the man whom he desires to help. The case of the man who cannot get death gratuity owing to illness or effects consequent on War service is already entirely covered by the Bill. If such a man lives to the age of 60 he can obtain a superannuation allowance, if he is disabled he gets disablement allowance, or, if he dies, under Subsection (4) there is repayment of his contribution. It is difficult to imagine what further concessions could be given to him. But nevertheless there is real hardship, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. The real hardship is that he cannot get any death gratuity because he was in impaired health at the commencement of the Act, but that is a hardship which was created by the Act of 1918, and not by this Bill, and it cannot be removed by this Bill. The Amendment will accentuate that hardship in any case where such a disabled man refused to contribute, since he would shut himself out from the possibility of getting disablement allowance which he can otherwise get. The
Amendment, in other words, is not conceived in the interests of the case which my hon. and gallant Friend has in view. Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 enables a teacher who cannot qualify for a superannuation allowance at 65 to cease his contributions, and to have those contributions returned. He thereupon ceases to be entitled to any benefit under the principal Act. Now it is proposed, under this Amendment, to put within this category any man who owing to illness consequent upon War service cannot get the death gratuity. The result would be that such a man might claim repayment of his contributions under Sub-section (1). He might then live to 65 or be disabled, and he would then be entitled neither to superannuation allowance nor disablement allowance. It is very difficult to imagine an Amendment which could be less in the interests of those persons whom the Amendment is designed to serve. In those circumstances I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw his Amendment which has not the effect which he desires.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (4), leave out the word "payment" ["received payment of"], and insert instead thereof the word "repayment."—[Mr. Fisher.]

Major GRAY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert the words
All contributions returned under this Section shall be treated as a capital payment for the purposes of Income Tax.
The point which I am raising here is of more immediate interess to the local authorities who have to collect the contributions and the Income Tax than to the teachers. The Inland Revenue authorities treat the payments received by the teachers under the Superannuation Act as capital, and do not require Income Tax to be paid on the amount so received. If, therefore, the man reaches the age of 65, and draws a superannuation allowance lump sum of one and a-half year's salary the Inland Revenue authorities treat that lump sum as a capital, and no Income Tax is payable thereon. Now it has been already provided in the Finance Bill of this year that the contributions made under this Bill shall be deducted from the assessable income for Income Tax purposes. In
other words, Income Tax will not be payable upon it, but it is provided in a very few cases that the contribution shall be returned. In the case which we have just had under consideration, that of the teacher who does not become eligible for superannuation allowance, the contribution may be returned. I am asking that those returned contributions shall be treated exactly as we treat the superannuation allowance. That is that it shall be free from Income Tax.
May I point out the difficulty which the local authority will have in ascertaining what the man's income was from all sources, this year and next year, during the two years in which the Act is running, and then deducting from his salary the third year the amount which would be paid as Income Tax on the contributions during each of these two years. If the Income Tax were a fixed amount, and did not vary from year to year, the task, though somewhat difficult, would not be insuperable, but you have a varying tax and an income derivable from salary and other sources, and the local authority financial experts tell me that they will have the greatest difficulty in ascertaining what amount the man ought to have paid in 1922, 3923, and 1924, so that the amount may be aggregated and repaid to the Treasury in the form of Income Tax. If, therefore, the returned contributions were treated in precisely the same way as the lump sum payable on death this difficulty would not arise. I am anxious to lay down here a principle.
If the principle should be incorporated in an amended scheme, and it became a question of returning 20 or 30 years' contributions, then I do not envy the financial expert of any local authority who has to go back over the contributions made by any individual during a period of 30 years, and ascertain what was the amount of Income Tax which he ought to have paid during each of those years. Nay, more, there is the man who goes from one local authority to another. He is one year with one and another with another. The local authority with which he is serving at the end of the time will become responsible for the deduction for Income Tax purposes. My right hon. Friend might accept this as a declaration of principle. He can do it without loss to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer because assuming that the two years' contributions are held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then when he returns them he will have had the use of the money with the interest thereon, while the teacher will be deprived of the use of the money and the interest thereon, and he, having paid over the contributions which it is ultimately found have not been legally taken from him, should not be required to pay Income Tax on the aggregate amount when it is returned.

Mr. SPEAKER: The speech of the hon. and gallant Member has made me a little doubtful about the propriety of this Amendment. I thought that it was only a declaratory paragraph, repeating what is the practice now by Statute or Regulation. After the speech of the hon. and gallant Member it seems to me that the Amendment ought to have been introduced a week ago into the Finance Hill. I will hear further arguments before I come to a decision.

Mr. FISHER: I confess that I had expected you to rule this Amendment out of order. It appears to me to override the decision which was arrived at by the House when the Finance Bill was discussed. I submit that the Amendment would impose a new charge. It is true that that charge would not be borne by the State in the current financial year, but the Amendment would relieve teachers from Income Tax on their contributions two years hence. I thought, therefore, it was out of order. It appears to me to be an Amendment which does not properly belong to this Bill. It overrides the decision of Parliament as to the proper treatment of returned contributions, both under the teachers scheme and under other schemes set up by public Acts. Not only that, but in doing so it discriminates in favour of teachers only, and it would set up a differentiation between teachers and all other classes of employés which would be indefensible on logical grounds. For those reasons I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. RAFFAN: I raised this matter on the Finance Bill, and I understood that I received an assurance from the learned Solicitor-General that no Income Tax would be imposed upon the returned con-
tributions. I have not a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT here, but when I read the Report the day after the Debate, I was confirmed in the belief that I had received that assurance. I regret extremely to hear the view expressed by the Minister of Education. I would ask him whether he has consulted the representatives of the Exchequer before making his statement to-day.

Mr. SPEAKER: My impression was the same as that of the hon. Member. In any case the Finance Bill of next year clearly will be the proper place to set this right, if there be a grievance in this respect. It will hardly do to have an odd Income Tax provision in a Bill of this kind, instead of having it in its proper place, which is in the Finance Bill. I dare say the hon. and gallant Member will see the force of that argument.

Major GRAY: I accept your ruling at once, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 3.—{Saving. 61 & 62 Vict., c. 57. 2 & 3 Geo. 5, c. 12.)

If any teacher who, immediately before he became subject to the principal Act, was subject to the provisions of the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, or the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1912, or any pension scheme, and who in consequence of the principal Act ceased to be subject to those provisions, proves to the satisfaction of the Board that he is in a worse position by reason of the foregoing Sections of this Act than that in which he would have been under the said provisions or the pension scheme, as the case may be, the Board shall at such time and in such manner as shall seem just to them, award to him such compensation as shall in their opinion be sufficient to compensate him for the difference in his position.

The Board shall, for the purposes of this Section, act on the advice of the Government Actuary.

Amendment made: Leave out the words "the advice of the Government Actuary," and insert instead thereof the words
a report from the Government Actuary who shall before making such report be required to consider any representations made by or on behalf of the teacher concerned, and a copy of such report shall he communicated to the teacher if he so desires."—[Major Gray.']

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th July,] "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months."
Unfortunately, from many points of view, the discussion on this Bill must be regarded as a continuation of the discussion in which the House has just been engaged. I hope to give sufficient reasons why we are entitled to distinguish between the position of Scotland and that of England in respect of teachers' superannuation. I think I express the regret of a considerable number of Scottish Members when I say at once that we recognise that we are bound hand and foot in this discussion by the fact that decisions have been reached in connection with the English Bill which will make it very difficult indeed for us to secure any modification of the Scottish Measure. From our point of view that is a singularly unhappy state of affairs. It is worth while to point out at once certain respects in which this Bill differs materially from the English Bill. We had a strong discussion this afternoon as to whether the deductions from teachers' salaries in England should go back to 1st June or to 1st July. The House altered the decision of the Standing Committee and inserted 1st June. In the case of the Scottish Bill it will be observed in the first Clause that the date is 1st April, 1922. So that, if there is any retrospective element to be considered at all, it is plain that we have at the outset a considerable difference between the treatment of the English teacher and that of the Scottish teacher. After the pressure which was exerted in the earlier discussion on the English Bill, the Minister of Education agreed to limit that Bill to a period of two years. There is no such limit in the Scottish Measure. Clause I lays down the date as from the first day of April, 1922, and then goes on to say, "and until Parliament otherwise determines."
I hope Scottish teachers will recognise that while in later parts of the Bill a scheme is forecasted, there is no time limit similar to the two years' time limit which is incorporated in the English Measure. It will be necessary for us in Committee to try to secure Amendments on these points. Clause 2 provides for the framing of the scheme and for the return of the contributions of teachers. Many Scottish teachers have drawn my attention to the fact that, while these contributions may be taken from them, and while afterwards it may be discovered that, strictly speaking, contributions were not required, there is no provision for allowing the teachers any interest on the money of the use of which they have been deprived. I know-that that was proposed in connection with the English Bill, and was resisted. But it seems to me an eminently fair proposal that if you draw cash from individuals for a period, and deprive them of its use, you should at least make them some allowance in respect of the loss they have incurred. Those are the preliminary considerations in connection with this Bill. There are, of course, far more important points where Scottish teachers' superannuation is concerned.
Superannuation for teachers in Scotland within recent times falls into three stages—the Act of 1898, the Act of 1908, and then the legislation of 1918. The periods are very easily remembered because they are ten years apart. I do not propose to deal with the legislation of 1898, except to say this: that Scottish teachers were dragged into it at the eleventh hour, partly against their will, and when they did not have an opportunity of understanding all that was involved. For our purpose now we come to the legislation of 1908, which set up a scheme on a contributory basis—a scheme of which, from many points of view, the Scottish teachers were justly proud. That legislation continued in force until the Act of 1918, and I think I express the views of the overwhelming majority of Scottish teachers when I say that they were satisfied with it, and that they parted from the contributory principle with very great regret. The change was introduced in 1918. It is fair to keep in mind that while the legislation of 1918 introduced a non-contributory principle in the case of Scottish teachers, similar to the principle which was introduced in the case of England, that Bill of 1918 carried
with it certain disadvantages which can be set alongside of or against the absence of contributions which henceforward Scottish teachers were to enjoy. Let us remember clearly that under the legislation of 1908 Scottish teachers were not called upon for a contribution of 5 per cent., such as this Bill proposes. The contribution was only 4 per cent., and there was a contribution by local authorities and by the State. That was a perfectly sound scheme in the case of Scotland. It was torn up by the roots in the legislation of 1918. Scottish teachers were placed on a non-contributory basis and English conditions were once again applied to Scotland.
Is this Bill just to Scottish teachers? We are bound to ask whether there is any case for the bargain which was discussed by a Committee upstairs and how that bargain stands. There is no doubt whatever that if we cast our minds back to that representative meeting which was held in Edinburgh in August, 1919, there was a clear understanding on the part of large numbers of education authorities, and, I think, on the part of the great majority of teachers, that this non-contributory element in the new- legislation would be taken into account where salaries were fixed in future and where new scales were enforced. I know that argument is open to question from some points of view, and that different opinions are held in different quarters. Even if I were not able to establish the contention that at that date, namely, August, 1919, that consideration was very clearly in the minds of the education authorities and the teachers, I think I should be able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, that subsequent action in the matter of the fixing of the teachers' salaries in Scotland showed quite clearly that the new scales were being adjusted, with the knowledge and the very clear memory on the part of these people, that there was now a non-contributory superannuation scheme in existence. As regards the subsequent fixing of the salaries in Scotland, that is, the application of these new scales, my submission is that the non-contributory element was taken into account and was present in the minds of these people, and to that extent the Scottish teachers in now being asked for a contribution of 5 per cent. are placed at a clear and obvious disadvantage. There is, I submit, this understanding in Scot-
land, and I think we are bound to keep that in mind when we pass to the further consideration of the exact proposals of the Bill.
I may recall what I said in introduction. There is no time limit in the case of Scotland. There is a longer period of retrospection as compared with the English Measure and this is a request for a 5 per cent. contribution until this new superannuation scheme is set up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer unguardedly used a phrase this afternoon which supports, from every point of view, the case which we on these benches have made. He described the 5 per cent, contribution as a tax, and when we look at this matter from the point of view of the plain principles of superannuation, it will be seen that both in the Scottish Bill as it stands and in the English legislation which has just left this House for another place, there is really no superannuation scheme at all. There is merely an undertaking that the Government will continue its contributions and there is a call for a certain contribution of 5 per cent. to yield a certain aggregate sum, from the teachers themselves. But we find here no superannuation scheme, as we properly understand that phrase. By superannuation scheme I mean a scheme which has been actuarially worked out, a scheme to which certain people contribute, which takes account of the probable life of the members of the fund, and the probable call upon the fund, and then fixes the contribution of the respective parties on the actuarial basis which is thus established. I want to be perfectly fair to the Secretary for Scotland, as we nearly all try to be in these matters. The second part of the Bill provides for the establishment of this superannuation scheme, and it also provides for the return of contributions which may prove on later investigation not to have been required. But is it unfair to suggest that we are probably going to ask from the Scottish teachers on this 5 per cent. basis something in excess of what the State strictly requires for this purpose at the present time?
My solution of the problem would not be to rush in at the present stage with a contribution which is merely a tax, and alongside which we are entitled to set these disadvantages in the legislation of 1918, but to proceed without delay to
frame a proper superannuation scheme for Scottish teachers. If the country decides upon a contributory principle, I am not here to say that I have very strong objections, but I would, indeed, from many points of view, offer support. On the contributory principle we have to keep this in mind, that if contributions are exacted from teachers in the future to a superannuation scheme, as I presume they will be, then there is only one large class in the community, namely, civil servants, who are on a non-contributory basis as regards superannuation. All superannuation henceforward, all the teachers' superannuation, all other classes of superannuation in the community, with the exception of civil servants, will be on the contributory principle. If it is accepted in the case of the teachers, if the teachers agree, and a scheme is framed, I am not disposed to make any very lengthy comment on that point, for this reason, that I do not think it worth while discussing at length the mere question of a contributory or a non-contributory scheme. My experience, fortified by the reports of actuaries who deal with superannuation, is that where a non-contributory scheme—or, rather, a scheme which is generous, since we cannot find a non-contributory scheme—that where a generous scheme is in force it influences salaries, and is taken into account when scales of salaries are fixed.
If a contributory scheme is introduced, I have no doubt whatever the contributions will be borne in mind in future, and what the teachers can obtain will depend on the strength of their organisation, the state of national and local finances, and the disposition of the community to treat them fairly and justly in their profession. I do not need to enter into any long argument on the mere question of the contribution, but I do say that this is very likely to prove in practice an unfair imposition. With the best will in the world, we are not making a contribution to any definite scheme We are only asking the Scottish teachers for a percentage not hitherto paid by them, which is going into the education fund of the Government, and is to be set against the cost of superannuation as a whole. From that point of view this is a bad Bill, and I think it is unjust to the teachers, as compared with the terms of the English Measure. Personally, I am satisfied that it is possible to
embark without delay upon the preparation of a proper Scottish superannuation scheme, but I am not satisfied that this Bill is strictly necessary at all.
I recognise, of course, that the Secretary for Scotland has an obvious reply. If my contentions were carried out, which it not very likely as this House is constituted, it would amount to this, that the percentage contribution for the period of two years had been introduced in the case of England, whereas in Scotland we traded on, without any contribution, until we definitely established our scheme. I do not know that that would be a bad result at all, but the Secretary for Scotland will at once say that would involve a difference between English and Scottish treatment such as the Government could not for one moment tolerate. I urge these objections to the Bill at this preliminary stage because I think it is important to put them before the House now. Because I think there has been a certain breach of faith with the Scottish teachers; because I think this Bill is unjust from many points of view, and because it can be objected to on the pure ground of superannuation—for these and other reasons, I think I am justified at this stage in moving its rejection.

Mr. KENNEDY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have no desire to repeat the arguments presented to the House already this afternoon with regard to the parent Measure. I regard the Scottish Bill as something more than a financial Measure. For some reason, which I do not understand, it is called the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill. Up to the present moment I fail to see what the Bill has to do with education. It is more than a mere financial Measure. It is more than a Measure merely providing machinery to give effect to decisions already reached in connection with the English Bill. As it stands, it is, in my judgment, a distinct breach of an honourable understanding, and the issues involved are more far-reaching than the educational field. The history of this controversy over teachers' superannuation has witnessed what I think the Secretary for Scotland regrets as much as any other Scottish Member, namely, the dragging of Scottish educational interests behind English interests. They are being treated as matters of
secondary importance. Scottish interests, particularly in regard to education—not only the interests of the teachers, but the interests of the whole Scottish educational system—are of sufficient importance to warrant consideration in this House on a more generous basis.
I think the object of this Measure might have been reached without a disturbance of the whole field of teaching either in England or Scotland. The real object aimed at in the Bill is to extend the application of the findings of the Geddes Committee to the salaries of the teaching profession. A Bill introduced to attain that end should properly be entitled "a Bill for the Reduction of Teachers' Salaries," and not an Education Bill, and that object should have been reached by an amicable arrangement between the Treasury, the local education authorities and the teaching profession. Looking at the Bill as a Scottish Measure, what do we find? We find that right through the period 1912–18 Scottish teachers had their contributory scheme in operation. We find that the English principle of a non-contributory scheme was applied to Scotland against the wishes of the vast majority of the Scottish teachers, and right down to the present moment the whole tendency has been to treat the Scottish interests as of secondary importance. The Scottish contributory Measure was wrecked, and athough the Secretary for Scotland in introducing this Measure described the Bill as an agreed one, I fail to see on what ground he could possibly hope that the House could accept it on that basis. Where is there agreement in regard to this Measure?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): All I said was that I hoped the Bill would be regarded as an agreed Measure in this House. Apparently, I was wrong.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. KENNEDY: Most distinctly so, because certainly outside there is nothing that can possibly be called agreement in regard to it. I think I know the state of mind of the teaching profession in Scotland in regard to this Measure, and I say, without any hesitation at all, that where there is agreement as to its provisions it is agreement that has been reached practically at the point of the bayonet. Indeed, I suppose that the teachers in Scotland feel,
as we feel here to-night, that the end of this Debate is a foregone conclusion, that nothing we can say from this point onward till the Bill becomes an Act will alter the Government's policy, and that what happens in regard to the English Measure will be translated into the Scottish Measure. All I want to say is this, that while there has been Debate in regard to the implied obligation of the Government towards the teaching profession in England, the implied obligation so far as Scotland is concerned, is, in my judgment, ten times stronger. What did happen when the existing scale of salaries in Scotland was fixed? In August, 1919, months after the terms of the English non-contributory Measure were known, at a conference in Edinburgh representative of the Department, of the teaching profession, and of the local authorities, certain scales were fixed. It is beyond question that Government responsibility entered into the fixing of those scales, and it is an admitted fact that the Secretary for Scotland, as head of the Scottish Education Department, approved of those scales of salaries. Departmental approval of those scales meant Government approval, and it is certain that those scales were settled after certain advantages that were to accrue from the acceptance of the non-contributory superannuation scheme had been laid before the teachers.
In the face of that, I think I am entitled to repeat that this Bill is a breach of an honourable understanding, and that it is quite an unnecessary Measure, so far as Scotland is concerned, and I suggest to the hon. Member who has moved the rejection of the Bill that he should persist in his Amendment until we are satisfied with a plain, unqualified statement from the Secretary for Scotland, not only that the date fixed in Clause 1 of the Bill, the 1st April, will not be adhered to in Committee, but that the House will get assurances in regard to the date at which the Bill will expire, so that at the end of the two years we may be free to reconsider the whole issue and to put the whole matter of the superannuation of the teaching profession on a sounder basis than this Bill will place it.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: I have listened to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the rejection of the Bill with
that respect which we all love to give to well-argued and well-stated reasons. The Seconder has introduced some rather violent language and some rather controversial words which were absent from the speech of the Mover of the rejection. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has always accustomed us to his invariable habit of looking at things in a fair and moderate spirit, and it is curious that while he began by moving the rejection of the Bill, I found myself in almost constant agreement with practically the great majority of the propositions which he put forward in his speech. There is no one who would be more unwilling than I that we should be led in Scotland merely by precedents created for the convenience of England. I have opposed that over and over again, and I am ready to oppose it hereafter. We shall have in Committee to correct and adjust certain points in this Bill, not only to meet the financial balance that must be kept with England, but also, I hope, quite freely and unreservedly, Scottish Members will all join together in amending the Bill in Committee in such a way as will make it, whatever be the case in England, suitable for Scotland, and I am sure we can rely upon the cooperation both of the Mover and Seconder of the rejection in that matter. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh referred to the previous history of this question of contributions to pensions. Will he allow me to say that I want, if possible, to separate two questions which I think are far too much involved one with another, namely, the question of the terms upon which the pensions are granted, and the question of the terms upon which salaries are paid. It is a false idea altogether to try to mix them up too much one with another.
As regards contributory pensions, I am glad to welcome this Bill, because it gives me some hope of coming back to what I think the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, and I think also the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy), would agree is a fair system, namely, a contributory system with a superannuation fund created. I am quite in favour of that, and I thoroughly supported the scheme put forward in the Act of 1908. That Act was thoroughly approved in Scotland. It was accepted warmly by the teaching profession in Scotland, and all who looked for the
good of that profession felt sure that it was really for its advantage, and not only that, but when the whole of this scheme was upset, it raised a very great storm of opposition from the teaching profession in Scotland, with which I, for one, cordially sympathised. I fought that Bill of 1918 when it was brought forward as hard as I could. I thought it was dangerous in the long run to the teaching profession. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh stated that he was rather in favour of a contributory system, but he said the only non-contributory system of pensions left will be that of the Civil Service. That is perfectly right, but we have established for the Civil Service non-contributory pensions, not in the interests or for the advantage of the civil servant, but because, after careful consideration, it was found to be best in the interests of the State. Do hon. Members not see the difficulties that might easily arise if you had not a system of pensions for the civil servants which were non-contributory, although, of course, they are contributory in the sense that they lower the salaries paid? It should be remembered that a civil servant cannot claim any repayment if he retires, and therefore, by means of your non-contributory pensions scheme, you have a tremendous hold on him. Do hon. Members not realise that most men who advance to a considerable position in the Civil Service have more than one opportunity of changing to something better paid? What prevents them from taking such a step and leaving the Civil Service? It is that they are not prepared to surrender the considerable part of their pension which they have already earned. Over and over again, civil servants are prevented from bettering their position because you have them tied by the tether of their pension. It is really for the advantage of the State, but remember this, that it keeps the civil servant under a very severe discipline, and the civil servant cannot afford to put himself in a wrong position.
I am not prepared to see the teaching profession reduced to terms of the same discipline as are necessary for the Civil Service. I am certain that if you do that you will lower the teaching profession, and I think you will be selling the valuable elements of independence, and freedom, and power of readily changing your
employment, if you like, and thus getting free of an annual contribution towards your pension, which, if you chance to leave your profession, is paid back to you when you leave. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will look at this Bill, so far as it establishes a contributory system, as one that really brings something that is of advantage to the profession and that maintains the freedom and the independence of the profession far higher than it is possible in the case of the Civil Service, which must be under a very severe discipline. Far be it from me to say that these pensions ought to be strictly limited to the product of the teachers' contributions. That would be ungenerous and unjust. There are three authorities which ought to contribute to the pensions —the teachers themselves, in order to keep up their independence and be able to hold up their heads amongst their fellow men; secondly, the local authorities, because they get the service; and, thirdly, the central Department, because it presides over the whole of education and is indebted to the teachers for carrying out that service. I trust that, so far as this establishes a contributory system, it will be realised as something that, in the long run, is for the advantage of the teachers, that it is getting back one step towards the establishment of a superannuation fund, of which their contributions will form one part, that it will maintain their independence, and that it will recognise their position as an independent profession, quite different from a profession entirely in the service of the State and regulated by the strict conditions that must attach to a State service. Hon. Members also have to consider this Bill in a wider aspect. I now come to the other great side of it—the salaries of teachers, which I consider to be of ten times the importance of this bagatelle of a contribution towards a pension. For years and years, while I was head of the Education Department in Scotland, so far as I could take part, and ever since I have been in this House, I have striven all I could to bring home to those I addressed the crime that was committed by the insufficient payment of teachers, the folly that was done to the interests of the country by this traditional habit which existed through generations. I had the honour of sitting as Chairman of the first of these
Commissions which dealt with teachers' salaries two years before the Burnham Report, and I was glad to have, as my colleague, my loyal colleague in the representation of the Scottish universities (Mr. Cowan). Our object there was not to establish a sort of trade union scale. What we sought to establish was a minimum below which no teacher should be-paid, and below which it should not only be a matter of shame for local authorities to pay, but which, if they attempted to go below it, would involve them in great pecuniary loss. I would far rather leave the raising of the salaries above that minimum scale to the generosity of local authorities. I do not think it is a good thing in a great profession like that of the teachers—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): How does the right hon. Member connect these rather large arguments with the very limited title of this Bill?

Sir H. CRAIK: It has always been argued that these two points are closely connected. It has been said that this contribution towards pension is practically a reduction of salaries, and a breaking of the bargain made with regard to salaries by enforcing this contribution. That is the connection which through all the discussions has been recognised. I say that we ought to deal with this question of teachers' salaries on a free basis. I do not like to fix too uniform a scale, and I appeal to the teaching profession themselves to say that they are not quite satisfied with these uniform scales of payment extended over various schools of a completely different character, because they have given rise to a good deal of injustice and a good deal of overpayment in some cases, and perhaps of underpayment in others. I am for laying down absolutely and enforcing a minimum below which payment ought not to be made, but I am in favour of going up in proportion to the responsibilities you lay upon a man, and in proportion to the estimate you form of his capacity, ability and energy in the discharge of his responsibilities. I think that is a far more wholesome method.
I ask the House to agree to this Bill as a first step towards what, I trust, will be eventually a restoration of an efficacious superannuation scheme, and I do that because, looking forward, I think that
will be an immense lever to the teaching profession when we come to consider the question of salaries. The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) seemed to me to speak far too much of the possibility of salaries being reduced. That may be. I trust it; will not be. I certainly shall not look upon the general reduction of salaries with any favour. I think it may come to be necessary, but salaries had to be increased, and they have been increased. I trust local authorities will not be too quick in jumping to the conclusion that we shall save a little money by reducing salaries, but I do ask the teaching profession and all those Members in this House who have the interests of the teaching profession at heart to be prepared to accept this first step in the certain knowledge that it will put them in a sound and wholesome position with regard to their fellow-citizens, and that it will be a strong weapon in their hands, when we and they come to fight against what I think would be an ill-omened and pernicious tendency suddenly and quickly to lower salaries. Let us look ahead and see what will be the effect of the acceptance of this contribution. I think it will be all for the good, and I do trust that we shall have a fight against any sudden tendency—because we know that tendencies come and go—against any sudden reaction towards a reduction of salaries. I trust that this Bill will be passed, but I hope we shall all co- operate in Committee upstairs to try to make it as suitable in all particulars for our country as we can make it.

Colonel Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: I wish to say a few words in support of this Bill. I was one of those who, on a previous occasion, when a similar Bill for England was under consideration, voted for the Adjournment, in order that the question might be referred to a Committee of Members before a decision was come to. It appeared to me, having listened to that Debate, that the matter was doubtful. I could not see clearly whether or not it had been established that there was no implied pledge, in the case of English teachers, that their salaries and emoluments generally should not be interfered with until 1923 or 1925. The House came to that conclusion, and the Government was beaten by a majority of three. The Committee assembled, and gave its decision. After that, the road
was clear. Parliament had done its duty. It had hesitated to take this step until it had satisfied itself by every means in its power that there was no breach of faith involved in the case of the English teachers. I was able, therefore, to vote for the passing of the Bill. So much for the English question. The Scottish question must necessarily follow upon the English question. The grants for education in Scotland are, I understand, dependent upon what is given to England. Hence a similar Bill for Scotland must follow from the circumstances.
What is the condition of the Scottish teachers in this matter? I understand that they have a much weaker case than had the English teachers. I disagree upon this point from my hon. Friend above the Gangway. In the case of the Scottish teachers there was no mention of ending in a particular year, 1923 or 1925, or any other period during which their salary or emoluments generally were not to be interfered with. I am informed that the teachers are in reality the employés of the county education authorities, and they, or most of them, are under short notice of dismissal; their salaries or conditions of service can be changed under short notice. That being so, it appears to me that Parliament, having satisfied itself upon the English question, which was somewhat obscure, there was no reason in the world why we should not in this matter proceed in the same way and take the same steps in regard to the Scottish teacher. That is my opinion after the most careful and most conscientious consideration of the matter, and after consultation with some of the teachers in my constituency. I think the teachers would be well advised not to press too strongly any supposed grievance in this connection. There is a great demand for economy at the present time. All along the way the ratepayers have in their minds that the teachers have recently had a large addition to their salaries—there are some who consider that the addition is too large—the larger number of people consider that some economy in this particular matter is absolutely necessary, and they look to the teachers not to press any fancied grievance that they may have in their minds, or any claim, but to fall in with the general progress of that economy recommended by the Geddes Committee. For
that reason I see my way clear to support this Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I also support this Bill because I think it is inevitable under all the circumstances. I hope we will agree to letting it go through without a Division. I think it unwise in the interests of the teachers themselves to throw about any charges of breach of faith in regard to Scotland, and I would implore my Scottish colleagues to beware of putting forward such charges. At the same time, while I support the Bill, I strongly resent the position in which we are placed in Scotland. The teaching profession, the educational world, and the people of Scotland have a decided grievance as to the state they find themselves in. We had in Scotland a good working contributory scheme. In 1898 a Bill was brought forward setting up a superannuation scheme, but the scheme outlined in that Bill was not congenial to the Scottish people, and it was only the passage of the Act of 1908 that enabled the authorities in Scotland to set up a proper superannuation scheme. From the establishment of that scheme in 1912 down to its being scrapped it gave every satisfaction to the teaching profession and the education authorities in Scotland generally. That scheme was founded on a very sound principle. The teachers themselves contributed 4 per cent. The local education authorities subscribed 2 per cent. The State gave something under 4 per cent. The superannuation fund was, therefore, founded upon a contribution of nearly 10 per cent.
At the time that scheme was abandoned there were indications that out of the fund thereby started, and under the scheme, greater benefits might have been given to the profession. The scheme was on the highway to establishing itself on a sound and satisfactory footing. During the seven years it was in operation it had given every satisfaction to the teaching profession. What happened? Here in England, in 1918, a superannuation scheme of the most extraordinary kind was established, in the high tide of profligate expenditure, when millions were being squandered, and the result was that the teaching profession in England were given a non-contributory scheme, and that, notwithstanding that the passing of this non-contributory scheme for the English teachers, would imperil the well-established scheme we had in Scotland.
It must be borne in mind that an organised educational system had been established in Scotland centuries almost before it was established in England. The people of Scotland have worked out a sound educational system that compares most favourably with the educational system here. When the Treasury and the Educational Department in England were faced with the problem of providing a superannuation scheme for the English teachers they ought to have taken into consideration the existing scheme in Scotland, and—if I may say with all respect to the English Members—if there are any in the House—

Mr. LAWSON: There are two!

Mr. JOHNSTONE: —the proper and wise thing for the Government to have done would have been to have established a superannuation scheme on the lines of the Scottish scheme which had been tried and tested, and was working well. Teachers in Scotland have said to me that because that scheme was scrapped they had got their premiums back. Teachers have said to me that they were ashamed to take back that money. They considered that being connected with the non-contributory scheme was sufficient without having handed back the money they had paid to the contributory scheme. There was no greedy desire on the part of the Scottish teachers to get those funds handed back. What is done under the English scheme? They not only got a non-contributory system of superannuation, but when a teacher retires under that scheme they get a lump sum. The Scottish teachers never desired that lump sum. It was a piece of gratutious expenditure. I had a letter the other day from an old Scottish teacher who had been in charge of a higher-grade school in Scotland, with a staff of 45 teachers, and pupils numbering from 2,300 to 2,500. When he retired, after serving a long time in the profession, and having reached the age limit, his salary was £375. We are all agreed that the teaching profession was miserably starved in the way of salaries. There was no inducement for the best men and women to go into the profession. I agree with my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik) that it would be a mistaken course, and against all sound educational policy to reduce the salaries of the teachers. I think good salaries are absolutely neces-
sary if we are to attract the best of our men and women in order that the plastic minds of the children under their charge may be fully developed. In the case of the schoolmaster I have just mentioned the salary was £375 per annum and he received a pension of £150 a year, and that was supplemented by bonus from Government resources making it about £180 a year with the prospect that it might ultimately reach £-200. This schoolmaster's successor started in his old school at no less than £800 a year, and if he had given the same service as the old teacher, he would have got a pension of £400 a year and a lump sum of £1,200. That is the new scheme which this country has embarked upon. It may be argued that it was necessary to put superannuation on a good working footing, but I think this reflects very little credit upon the Government that sanctioned the extravagant scheme of 1918.
The reason why I welcome this Bill is that there are indications that it will bring back the old Scottish superannuation scheme under which the teachers have that sense of independence which their contributions give them, and they will have this when the scheme has been brought forward to its full completion. There will also be opportunities afforded the teachers of having a say in the moulding of the scheme, which I hope will approximate to the old one which worked so well for all the interests concerned in Scotland. I hope that my colleagues in the House will agree that under all the circumstances of the case and in view of all the complications that have arisen we may get back to the system established for so many years in Scotland. If we take all these facts into consideration, I think my colleagues will agree to give this Bill a safe passage, and in Committee upstairs we may be able to improve the Measure, while still retaining the principle. I hope that a very short time will see our old Scottish superannuation scheme flourishing and doing well for the teachers.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. C. D. Murray): The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), who moved the rejection of this Bill, will pardon me for saying that I thought he did so not only in a very moderate way, but with some timidity. I do not think I shall be doing him any injustice if I
say that he is also sensible that they are rather fighting this Measure with their hands tied behind their backs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, when he introduced this Measure, said that he had hoped that there might be a large measure of agreement in regard to it amongst Scottish Members. I am sanguine enough to hope that still we may get the Second Heading without pursuing the matter to a Division.
But for one matter I should have felt almost inclined not to have intervened in this Debate at all. When the Second Reading was moved, the Secretary for Scotland, I am sure, with the sympathy and assent of the House, associated himself with the President of the Board of Education in England in regretting that this Measure should have been introduced, and that what was in a sense a gift made comparatively recently to the teaching profession seemed now to have been taken away. The Secretary for Scotland expressed that regret on his own behalf, but I am certain that I interpret the keynote of the discussion to-night correctly if I say there is another reason which bulks much more largely in the hearts of the Scottish Members, namely, that in regard to he Scottish system which prevailed after the establishment of the scheme in 1908, the hand of Scotland was forced, and all our Scottish Members have to-night expressed the regret that it should have been found necessary to alter in 1919 the system of the contributory scheme which from 1911, 1912, and up to 1919 was in operation in Scotland, and was established and maintained with the complete assent and concurrence of Scotland and the teaching profession. Nobody can maintain that the alteration was not essential or that it could have been avoided.
Let us remember what the position was. Parliament in 1918 determined upon the adoption of a non-contributory scheme under the English Act of 1918. Nobody can pretend that in those circumstances or even to-day it is possible to make any material differentiation between the status of the teaching profession in England and the teaching profession of Scotland. Therefore, as a loyal and patriotic Scotsman, one may deplore the death of that scheme. The position to-day is almost identical with that which was advanced in 1918, and it recognises that there can
be no substantial differentiation between the profession in England and in Scotland, for, after all, you may call it an Imperial service in that sense. One word more. Not only, I think, do I correctly interpret the feeling of Scottish Members as one of regret, but also it may be one of aspiration that out of what my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) called a bad Bill—I think perhaps less measured terms might have been used—there might be a return to former conditions. Reference has been made to the fact that a Departmental Committee is going to sit immediately upon the question and to report as to the position of the superannuation scheme. It would be premature, before the report of that Committee, to speculate what line it may take, but I recognise that so far as many Scottish Members are concerned, they hope it may take a form which has worked well and is familiar to Scotland. I do not propose to say much about the details of the Bill. I think I may, on behalf of the Secretary for Scotland, give an assurance that any suggestions which have been made will be carefully considered and discussed between us in Committee in so far as they are really Committee points.
There is one matter on which I must say a word. Not a charge but a suggestion has been made that in some way in Scotland there was some bargain between the educational authorities and the Government. My right hon. Friend stated that in his opinion, and I think we may take it he was well informed on this matter, in Scotland our hands were perfectly free so far as any contract or bargain was concerned. I want to be as generous to those who suggest otherwise as they have been to me. Let me state what I believe to be the actual facts on the information before me. We on this side cannot be any party to the idea there is in the presentation of this Bill any room for a charge of a want of good faith on the part of the Education Department. Let me put it as shortly as I can. The position was that in 1918 the English Bill was passed. At a conference in August, 1919, by which time I agree the English non-contributory scheme was a matter of fact, there was a conference at which there were represented the teachers on the one hand and the education authorities on the other, together
with representatives of the Scottish Education Department. I know that at a Committee meeting prior to that conference some reference was made to the total benefits which would accrue to the teaching profession, not only in respect of salaries, but in respect also of a non-contributory scheme. That is perfectly correct. I think I am right in saying also that at what I may call the main conference in August, 1918, no explicit reference to the benefits which the teachers would derive from a non-contributory scheme was made by anyone. But if you ask me if I think that fact may not have been present to the minds of the teachers, I should reply frankly that I think it must have been. Still no explicit reference was made to the point.
What happened was this, and I ask the House to note it. A certain minimum scale was put forward for the acceptance of the profession by the education authorities with the approval of the Department. The scale proposed on the one side was not accepted by the teachers and, in its place, a considerably higher scale was propounded, and, after a good deal of discussion, it was presumed to be a standard scale and was accepted by the conference. It now appears as the minimum scale under the Act of 1918. But what I want to bring out is this, it will not be disputed that, at the time, at was regarded more or less as a standard and not a minimum scale. It will not be disputed that, although this non-contributory scheme may have been present to the minds of the teachers and, therefore, in a sense, there may have been an implied understanding, there was an express understanding in regard to a very cogent matter at that conference, and it was this: Having in view the character of the scale that was adopted, there was before that conference a figure which represented the salaries of the teachers on an enhanced scale. The actual figure is well known to all of us. Therefore, if there was any implied understanding, there was also an express understanding that the scale which was adopted was conditioned by the view that the salaries in Scotland were represented by £x.
What happened? The standard that was adopted became in law the minimum scale, and, as was perfectly in accordance with
human nature, that scale was not adhered to, but pressure was brought to bear by the teachers on the education authorities, and the result was that, so far from that scale representing a standard, it is common ground that, on the; average, the scale that was fixed in August, 1919, has been very largely exceeded, and to-day the average of the teachers, by agreement no doubt with their local authorities, has been advanced to the extent of something between 30 and 40 per cent. over the standard scale of 1919. Accordingly, the figure which was the basis of the whole discussion, representing the salary bill for Scotland in August, 1919, has been vastly exceeded, the result being that, even if we grant that 5 per cent. is to be regarded properly—though personally I rather agree with the view presented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik)—as a deduction from the salary, it would be a deduction from a salary very much in excess of that contemplated by the parties at the time when this implied understanding was come to.
That is my information with regard to what took place, and, if I am properly informed with regard to the matter, I think it is idle to maintain that there is any breach of faith. There may have been an understanding in the minds of the teachers, but if so, the whole thing is conditioned by the fact that that arrangement was come to upon the express footing that you were dealing with a known figure as representing the salary bill for Scotland, and those conditions do not exist to-day. That is all that I desire to say with regard to, I think, the only new point which was raised. With regard to the minor matters, I give my right hon. Friend the assurance that they will be carefully considered, and I think I may add for all of us that we hope on both sides that the apprehension of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) will be proved in Committee to be ill-founded, for I think I can assure him, as I know he can assure me, that we Scottish Members will be anxious and willing to co-operate with each other lest in any way—and now I use his phrase—it be found that the English members of the teaching profession should be in any respect treated upon more generous or more just terms than the teaching profession in Scotland. I
hope that the hint with which I opened may bear some fruit, and that the hon. Member may see his way not to press his Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. D. M. COWAN: When the Secretary for Scotland introduced this Bill last Thursday evening, he not only gave us, as he always does with regard to any Bill with which he deals, a very lucid explanation of the provisions of the Bill, but he gave us also the expression of his regret that he had to introduce such a Bill at all. We can well believe that such was his opinion, because, while he may not have had very keen regret in 1919, when the old superannuation scheme passed away, his regret must have come into being very strongly when he found that the scheme which had replaced the former scheme had now to be, to a large extent, scrapped. If I might be allowed just a sentence of autobiography, I would say that I do not consider that any person in Scotland, not even the Secretary for Scotland himself, would see the passing of the 1912 scheme with greater regret than I did, for the reason that, during the formation of that scheme, it was my privilege to meet in almost constant conference the representatives of the Scottish Education Department, while among my most treasured possessions there is to-day an album with a very flattering testimonial as regards the work I did, and, more important than that, or at least more interesting, it contains over 12,000 autograph signatures of teachers in Scotland. That does argue a fairly close association with the scheme, and, therefore, it was with feelings of very great regret that I saw it depart; and I can say honestly that I was never very much convinced as to the soundness of the scheme which replaced it. On the present occasion, however, I feel not so much inclined to question what is being done by the Scottish Office or by the Government in introducing this Bill, as to make a protest against the manner in which Scotland is being dragged at the chariot wheels of England. I took the occasion, perhaps wisely, of speaking in the Debate on the English Bill, and I did so because I was perfectly sure that if I did not take it I should never have another on which to put the case of Scotland with anything like a chance of its being listened to or accepted. I could not conceal my astonish-
ment when I found from the OFFICIAL REPORT next day that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Renfrewshire (Sir J. Greig) had rather taken me to task for intervening. I think that, if it would not trouble the House too much, it would be interesting to them to know the grounds on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman, to whom we always listen with particular interest, dealt with my intervention in that Debate. There are two rather interesting sentences in his speech. He said:
I would not have intervened in the Debate but for some remarks which fell from the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities"—
that is myself. He went on:
Unfortunately, he dragged in the question of the teachers in Scotland. We in Scotland are only indirectly interested in this question, and the statement made by the hon. Member was not as full as it might have been.
Speaking with regard to Scottish teachers in the Debate on an English Bill, I can assure the House that I was expecting every minute to be told by the occupant of the Chair that I was out of order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman continued:
I shall not now give the details. I wish merely to point out one matter which differentiates the Scottish case which may have to be argued here sooner or later. I want to enter a caveat against that case being gone into on the English case.
Now what does the hon. and gallant Gentleman say as to the statement made by the Leader of the House to-day? He-has been waiting for something like 10 days for this Bill to come on at a reasonable hour. As the Paper stood yesterday, it was the first Order to-day, but we found this morning that it had been pushed back in order, as the Leader of the House said, that the main fight should take place on the English Bill. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will come in and undertake at least a good rearguard action with regard to Scotland. He said that this only indirectly affects Scotland, but it affects Scotland financially, and nothing that is financial can be indirect so far as Scot land is concerned. He added at the end of his speech:
It is rather a pity that the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities tried to jump the claim on this matter, which has an entirely different bearing, and must be
argued on a different series of facts."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1922; cols. 91–92, Vol. 156.]
The last thing that was in my mind was jumping anyone's claim. What I was trying to do, perhaps not very forcibly, but still with good intent, was to strike a blow for the independence of Scotland. To consider that Scotland is to follow England educationally would be greeted by our old friend Baillie Nicol Jarvie with his favourite exclamation "Ma conscience !"—and it is enough to make us wonder whether there really ever was such a thing as the Battle of Bannock-burn or whether such a person as John Knox ever lived. I must not traverse again the case for Scottish teachers, as I understand it, which I put before the House on the last occasion. I had an opportunity also of giving evidence before the Acland Committee, and as I put the case there it was accepted generally by the Scottish Education Department, and I have to thank the Secretary for Scotland for the very generous recognition which he made of the manner in which I gave that evidence. I hope he appreciated the spirit thereof. The Lord Advocate referred to this question of breach of faith. It has not been brought forward directly in any quarter, but there is a suspicion in some quarters that things have not just been carried out according to rule. Into all the details of mutual understandings it is impossible practically for anyone outside the negotiating parties to go, and at any rate it is too late for anything in the nature of recrimination. What we have to do now is to make the best we can of the position as we find it.
There are one or two points in connection with the Bill which it might be well to mention now, though they might be more properly dealt with in Committee. I take it for granted that such points as the date on which the Act comes into force, and the duration of the Act, will be accepted for the Scottish Bill as well as for the English. I think the Secretary for Scotland gave some assurance about that. But in the English Bill, as it now stands, provision has been made for a deduction in the case of certain classes of teachers. They are not to be called upon to make the full 5 per cent. contribution. As the Scottish Bill stands at present, it empowers the authorities to make a
deduction of 5 per cent., and if it were put through in that form there would be no option left to the Department but to exact the full amount, I daresay that matter will be raised and dealt with in Committee. It applies almost equally to Scotland as to England. The Lord Advocate has given us some figures which I am not in a position to accept or to reject. He has spoken of the national minimum scale being largely exceeded— I think he meant in the gross by 30 or 40 per cent. That figure is rather larger than I had expected, but I accept it as correct. There are thousands of teachers in Scotland who are not receiving a penny more than the minimum scale, so that their case, it may be, will require something in the way of a concession. Again, this is rather an enabling Bill than a Bill with definite provisions. It gives the Department power to make certain alterations in the scheme, and I hope advantage will be taken of this opportunity to make some changes which will be fairer to the teachers. May I take this opportunity of pointing out a very important difference between the English and the Scottish schemes? On several occasions I have thought to have had an opportunity of putting it before the House, as I have several times put it before the Education Department, and I daresay the Secretary for Scotland will recognise it for an old friend when I state it. There is in the Scottish scheme what I think is a very distinct hardship for teachers. The cases, to put them in parallel columns, are something like this. Under the English Superannuation Act a teacher who has given 30 years of service can retire with pension rights at the age of 60. That is to say, a teacher having given 30 years' service could, at the age of 55, retire without a pension but with pension rights at the age of 60. In Scotland the case is different. The condition there is that a teacher having given 10 years' service, and being in service on his or her 60th birthday, qualifies for an allowance, while a teacher who has given 35 or 38 years of service and has the misfortune not to be teaching on his or her 60th birthday or thereafter, for any reason whatever, has to retire without a single penny of pension or anything else. While that is not a matter for discussion on the Second Reading, it is a matter which will appeal to the Secretary for Scotland when he
is making changes in the scheme to remove a very flagrant injustice. I need not say I hope, because I am certain, the Secretary for Scotland and those associated with him will in Committee do all they can to make this Bill a success. It is too late now to think about the money part of it, but it is for each and all of us to forget whatever little grievance or soreness we have had in the past with regard to it and with regard to the manner in which it has been introduced, and to see that we try to make a scheme which will reflect the spirit which I am glad to say has inspired everyone who has spoken in this Debate.

Major GLYN: I should like to draw attention, as I did before, to the end of Clause 3, because I think if one matter stands out more than anything else as the result of this Debate, hon. Members opposite and we on this side are all hopeful of seeing from this Bill re-emerge something framed on the lines of the old superannuation fund. Everyone who has spoken has praised the management of that fund and the method by which it was conducted, and if it is really the intention of the Government to treat this as a temporary Measure and to give the Departmental Committee which is to consider the whole matter a perfectly free hand, I think we ought to be quite clear that the framing of this Bill will not tie the hands of that Departmental Committee. The point to which I wish to draw attention is that at the end of Clause 3 it is stated that the money is to be paid into the Exchequer. In the 1911 scheme, on which the old superannuation scheme was based, it was the National Debt Commissioners who had charge of that fund. In the scheme of 1911 it is set out that all moneys of the fund shall be paid by the Department to the National Debt Commissioners, and shall be invested by the Commissioners in any security in which money held by the Commissioners on account of savings banks may be invested, etc. I believe it is fundamentally bad to have a scheme and call it a superannuation scheme which is not quite distinct from the Exchequer, and I ask the Secretary for Scotland to draw the attention of the Departmental Committee to the difference as to the manner in which this money is to be safeguarded on behalf of the teachers. The only other point is that I am quite sure,
from the point of view of economy, if local authorities are called upon to pay there will be a further drain upon the demand made for carrying out full economy. At the same time, the full superannuation scheme should be put into force, and the three parties to that scheme should each contribute, namely the teacher, the local authority and the central authority. What I am anxious about is that the form in which this Bill has been drafted will not prevent the Departmental Committee when the proper time comes from re-establishing in full, for the benefit of all concerned, the superannuation scheme on the lines of that which previously existed in Scotland.

Mr. MURRAY McDONALD: I have received a telegram from the Secretary of the Education Authority in my constituency which raises a point to which I should like to direct the attention of the Secretary for Scotland. Clause 2 of the Scottish Bill imposes upon educational authorities in Scotland the duty of paying back to the teachers certain moneys that they have not budgeted for. I have been looking over the English Bill, and I can see no Clause corresponding to the Scottish Clause, and no obligation imposed on the education authority that in any way corresponds to the obligation that is imposed by that Clause on the Scottish authorities. I should like to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether that Clause does really impose such an obligation on these authorities, and, if so, whether he will sympathetically consider the question when we come to Committee.

Mr. MUNRO: With regard to the question raised by my right hon. Friend, I willingly give him the undertaking for which he has asked, but I would point out that in the English Bill, Clause 2, specific oases are dealt with, which are more generally dealt with in Clause 2 of the Scottish Bill. Clause 2 of the Scottish Bill deals with cases of death or retirement of teachers, and I fail to see how one can accurately budget in all cases in order to deal with such unexpected happenings as are comprised in the category to which I have referred. If there is any real grievance I shall be very happy to look into it; but Clause 2 is essential, as a matter of justice, to teachers. It is recognised in the Eng-
lish Bill, and some corresponding provision must be made in the Scottish Bill. The point raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and Eastern (Major Glyn) is also a Committee point. If he desires to amend the Clause in any way, I shall be happy to consider any Amendment which he puts down, but I would remind him that the provision in Clause 3 is of very simple origin. It is provided that money shall be paid into the Exchequer, and we are here dealing, not with a permanent arrangement, but with a temporary Measure. Having had a full and interesting discussion, I now appeal to the House to let us have a Second Beading of this Bill, particularly having regard to the fact that there is another Scottish Bill on the Paper.

Orders of the Day — MILK AND DAIRIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords.]

Order for Second Beading read.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The reason why I am introducing this Bill at this stage of the Session and asking the House to pass it before we adjourn, is because in 1915 a Milk and Dairies Bill was passed, the operation of which was postponed until after the War, and which comes into operation automatically on the 1st September. The Act of 1915 was a very large and ambitious Measure, dealing with the question of milk and milk production on a very elaborate and expensive scale. It was felt at the time the Bill was introduced that it was impossible to put it into operation during the War. The condition in which we find ourselves now, both in regard to the finances of the country and the industry of agriculture, is such that it will be generally agreed that the Act is not one which we can wisely put into operation at the present time. I, therefore, had to adopt one of two courses. One course was merely to postpone the operation of the Act of 1915 for a further number of years, when
both of the causes I have mentioned may have been very much ameliorated, and the other course was one which I have adopted, namely, to endeavour at the present time, in the least ambitious and least expensive way, to improve the supply of milk and the production of milk, which is very far from satisfactory from the public health point of view.
The Act of 1915 required large staffs, and placed very heavy duties upon the county councils, and was estimated to impose a charge of something like £800,000 per annum, rising to £1,000,000 in the cost of administration. Everyone will admit that this is an expenditure which we cannot possibly undertake at the present time. The Bill put expenses on landlords and farmers which in the present financial condition of the industry I am quite sure neither of them would be ready to carry out. With the very natural anxiety to get our milk supply improved, so far as quality is concerned, we are a little apt to overlook the fact that a great many milk producers, if we place too onerous conditions upon them, will cease to produce milk, and will adopt the more easy form of growing beef, and devoting their attention to other forms of agriculture. You cannot compel the farmer to produce milk. There are many other directions in which he can divert his energy. Therefore we always have to be very careful, in dealing with a problem of this kind, not to stop our already too scattered supply of fresh milk which is so very essential to the welfare of the country.
The Bill I am now introducing has already been passed through another place, where it has been very carefully considered and several Amendments introduced. It is the result of very careful consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, the Farmers' Union, the leading producers of high-grade milk, and all those who have taken most interest in the clean milk question. I am glad to say that the Measure has met with the approval of all those somewhat conflicting interests.

Mr. WATERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the consumers' point of view has been sought for?

Sir A. MOND: The consumers' point of view has been very carefully con-
sidered, and I think, as I develop my remarks, my hon. Friend will agree that it is on the consumer that I am very largely relying in this attempt to improve the quality of milk. I am introducing this Bill with a view to endeavouring to encourage the production of good milk. When I say "good milk," I mean that I wish to establish a grade of milk which is not so dear or expensive that it cannot be used or bought by a large part of the population. Instead of endeavouring to act by a form of compulsion, I want to act by a form of persuasion. The best form of persuasion, undoubtedly, lies with the consumer. If the consumer asks and insists on having a better standard of article, my experience shows that he will always get it. Practical experience shows that to be the case. I was interested in a hospital situated in a very poor part of London, and which concerned itself with infants under 12 months who suffered from mal-nutrition. To the out-patients' department mothers from a very poor strata of society brought their children. When one talked to them of the good milk which they ought to have, they went to the retailers and refused to take the bad milk which they had been given in the past, and thus they effected in that district an extraordinary revolution in the quality of the milk. Therefore the consumer has it in his power to deal with this matter by demanding a better article, and I hope he will exercise that power. I hope the retailer, also, will insist on the producer producing good milk, and by this chain work I have no doubt that a very considerable improvement can be made.
Local authorities already possess very considerable powers of securing sanitary conditions in production, storage and distribution of milk. The Milk and Dairies Order, of 1885, really gives very large powers to local authorities, and if it were more generally in force we should have gone much further than we have at present in the direction of obtaining clean milk. The powers of the Orders of 1885, 1886 and 1899 provide for the registration of all dairies and milk shops; the lighting, ventilation, cleansing, drainage and water supply of premises, and for precautions against infection or contamination. The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1885, Section 6, makes it an offence to sell to the prejudice of the consumer an article of food which is not
of the nature, substance and quality demanded. The Order of 1885 requires local authorities to keep registers, but outside London there is no general power to revoke registration once it has been granted. The result is that if the local authority has once registered a dairy, it has no power, at present, however much complaint may be made of any person who carries it on, to take away the registration. I propose in this Bill to give that power, and I think the local authorities will find it extremely useful in keeping those places on their registers under better supervision and control.
I have endeavoured to guard against, arbitrary action on the part of the local authorities against the retailer. If a revocation of a licence of registration is intended, seven days' notice is required, with the reasons, and the man must be given a hearing, with an appeal to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and, if necessary, an appeal to a Court of Quarter Sessions. This power will be a very valuable one, because obviously, if you have power to register a dairy, and if you have not the power to take that dairy off the register in cases where it is not conducted as it should be, you cannot exercise the necessary supervision-and control. I am endeavouring at the present time in this Bill to work on the methods of grading up. We have made some progress in that direction already. We have at present certified and Grade. A farms which are properly controlled, and in which a very strict inspection is made, with tuberculin tests in regard to the cattle used. The number of licences for' the certified grade and grade A has in creased from 17, in March, 1920, to 57 in July, 1922. That is some increase, but it is on a very small scale, and this milk is at present rather a luxury article than one useful to the great mass of our people. The reason, for that is that the tests which are asked for are really more rigid than was thought at the time that the average farmer would be ready to comply with. I propose to try and provide a system under conditions by which any reasonably careful farmer ought to be able to supply this quality of milk without any great additional cost to himself. We want to set up, as a standard article, milk which for health purposes ought to be satisfactory. I do not want pure milk to
be any longer the luxury of the rich, but I want to try and make it a common commodity for the use of all our citizens. I am certain when that is understood the demand will grow, that the producers will meet it, and there will be a general levelling up of the standard. The grading will be done by Orders,. which will have to be drawn up when the Bill is passed and which, of course, will have to be submitted to the House.
I was saying a word a moment ago on the question of milk, and of the tuberculin test for cattle. I do not want to go into too much technical detail, but I would say that what we want to get is milk which is free from tuberculosis bacteria. It is not the case that every cow which reacts to the test gives tuberculous milk. At the present- moment, the Medical Research Council, at my instigation, is carrying on an elaborate investigation into the whole question of the value of the tuberculin tests. I propose to go on the lines of testing the milk rather than the cow, and I am laying down a standard of a bacteriological kind in the milk test rather than dealing with the animal which is producing it. By an investigation into these problems we shall find many new and interesting facts about which at present our knowledge is very obscure, and finally arrive at something more satisfactory.
In Clause 4 we introduce provisions for prohibiting the addition of colouring matter or water and other things of this kind to milk. This is a continuation of a Food Control Order of 1921. This Order will naturally lapse on the 1st September this year if it is not embodied in this Bill and made part of our permanent legislation. Under the Food and Drugs Act already there are many offences as to the sale of adulterated milk with which it is difficult to deal. If a customer asks for a pint and does not say "milk" to the retailer, it would be difficult to prosecute the retailer for selling adulterated milk. Under this Clause it is made an offence to sell, offer or expose for sale adulterated milk. That is, it is immaterial whether the customer asks for pure milk or any other kind. The mere fact of a man exposing for sale adulterated milk brings him under the penalties of the Act.
Under Clause 5 it is made an offence for any person knowingly to sell milk from a cow with tuberculosis of the udder. The penalties are severe. For the first summary conviction there is liability to a fine not exceeding £20, and for second and subsequent convictions a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period of six months. The penalties are purposely made severe because a person selling milk of that kind is retailing not food but poison. That is crime against society, and society has a full right to protect itself against it to the best of its ability. This continues Article 15 of the Dairies, etc., Order of 1885, as amended by the Order of 1889.
Clause 8 gives the Minister power to make Regulations for the prevention of danger to health from imported milk. The quantity of milk imported is small, but there are no Regulations at present for dealing with it, and it is only right, when we place upon our own people obligations imposed by Parliament, at the same time to see that no milk is allowed to come into this country which is not of equal quality. It is not a question of condensed milk, but a question of fresh milk. Condensed falls under another category. The question of the standard of condensed milk is one more of food value than of liability to spread tuberculosis. Regulations not yet settled may-lay down some standard such as bacteriological count, and empower appropriate authorities to reject milk not up to standard. I would not at the moment like to say what they shall be. I have not considered all the details.
Considerable powers already exist under milk and dairy Orders issued in the past, but in many cases even existing powers have been allowed to become a dead letter. Under Clause 11 powers may be exercised by a county council where a district council within the county have failed to exercise any of the powers under this Bill or any enactment relating to milk and dairies or any Order or Regulations made thereunder. The Minister of Health may after such inquiry as he thinks necessary by Order determine that all or any such powers and duties be transferred to the county council either for a definite period or until the Minister shall otherwise direct. This, I think, will be a very valuable provision in certain cases for equalising,
standardising, and enforcing these Orders throughout the country. Up to the present, enforcing these Orders has been very unequal. In some districts existing Orders are being enforced with very great zeal. In other parts of the country they have been let lie as a dead letter.
This is bad from several points of view. It is not fair to the producers of milk that one man in one district has got to put up his standard and that the retailers of milk in one district have to put up their standard, while in another district producers and retailers are not asked to observe that standard. It is equally unfair to people living in the district. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that by extending the power to a county council and giving a larger area, some county councils being more zealous and more responsible than some of the smaller district councils, we shall get a better and more uniform administration of the Orders and Acts which we are now discussing. The Orders, of course, which will have to be framed, will have to be laid before Parliament in the usual course. Consultation will have to take place between myself and the Minister of Agriculture on the framing of these Orders. That, I think, is only a reasonable provision. There is a number of other smaller provisions, with which I need not trouble the House at present. They can, if necessary, be discussed in Committee.
The Milk Act, 1915, is not in any way repealed by this Bill. I am merely postponing it for a certain number of future years, and the House will be able then to make up its mind as to whether or not more complex Measures shall come into law or what further Amendments, if any, will be necessary. I have endeavoured to frame a small and modest, but, I think, a useful, Measure, which will be a good step forward in the production and retailing of a better class of milk. We are all anxious to see progress made in this very important matter. No one can be very proud of the position we occupy, compared with the United States, on the question of our milk supply. As I have indicated, I propose to move by gentle steps. I thought that that was better than to take a purely negative attitude or to postpone any improvement. I hope that this Bill, when passed, will carry us a stage fur-
ther on the long road, which has been travelled for many years, to provide the people of this country with a better and purer, and I hope not more expensive, supply of milk, which is so much needed.

Mr. ACLAND: I am sorry that there are so few Members present to hear my right hon. Friend's interesting explanation of the Bill. There must be many hon. Members who at present are more practically interested in other fluids than in milk. Otherwise I am sure they would have been here. I am glad of this Bill and am in favour of it. I may claim to have done my little best, at any rate, to create an atmosphere, so far as I could, in which the right hon. Gentleman would have good hopes of making progress in this extraordinarily important matter. There was a great deal of disagreement among societies interested in milk production. That seemed to me to be unnecessary. Therefore, a few months ago, as Chairman of the Agricultural Organisation Society, I took it upon myself to have a Conference, which came to certain conclusions, and generally to agreement for the first time on lines very similar to those of the Bill. It is an extraordinary fact that, if this Bill reaches the Statute Book, it will be the first Milk Bill to become an Act in force in this country. We have the 1915 Act, but that is not to come into force yet. It is rather remarkable, when one realises the extraordinary importance of milk to public health, that there is no Milk Act, as such, in force in the United Kingdom—only certain Clauses in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. It is high time that we made a beginning of practical action in the matter. I hope that this Bill will not be the last step forward.
The general line taken by the Minister of Health is right. He is going to make a great effort, first to improve the milk supply and, secondly, to popularise the consumption of better milk. I hope he will have the assistance of all persons interested in public health. I believe he is right in beginning from that end. If a considerable proportion of our people, persons in schools, persons with families of young children, and so on, can be got into the habit of asking for one of the simpler grades of really good milk, it will be the beginning of real progress. It is right to try that, especially now, when the farming community is so utterly dis-
gruntled and depressed, instead of harassing the producer with regulations as to his cow-sheds and all sorts of elaborate inspection, with safety pins on cows' tails and all that sort of thing. The farmer simply will not stand having a Government inspector on his farm, and until he has forgotten something of the way in which he has been treated, first in the passing of the Agriculture Act and then in the repeal of that Act, he will not come to any better frame of mind. It is justifiable to postpone the Act of 1915, although that Act contains all sorts of valuable provisions from the point of view of health. The fact that it necessitated inspectors going all round the premises of every producer of milk would be fatal to its practical working, and we cannot stand the extra expense for officials of from £800,000 to £1,000,000.
The only person whom I have yet read of who wished to bring the Act of 1915 at once into operation, is the Noble Lord in another place who has a feeling of paternity towards the Measure. It is surely right that the licences hitherto given, or supposed to be given, by local authorities, should be made revocable, so that when a retailer's premises are not fit for retailing milk he can be put out of business or he can be required to abate the nuisance—take his cesspool away from the place where he sells his milk, or something of that kind, or at any rate put his methods of milk retailing into proper condition. Then, of course, there is the simplification of grades. There has been some development in the consumption of graded milk, but when all is said and done it comes to one common end. Either "certified" or "grade A" now is very much less than it ought to be. A simplification of grading ought very quickly to lead to greatly increased consumption of really graded and tested milk, which is what we want to aim at.
I am glad that, although bodies like the Co-operative Congress and a committee of the Trade Unions Congress have wanted to go farther, and to bring all the powers of the 1915 Act into force as soon as possible, yet they have, I understand, passed resolutions in favour of a development of the simplification of the grading of milk. The general basis of examining, not the farmer, but the milk itself, seems to me to be right. That is the thing that counts—the condition in
which the milk reaches the consumer. If the milk comes up to a reasonable standard, I am sure you can trust the people who handle the milk to see that milk of that standard is produced under reasonably good conditions. If it once pays the retailer to sell this new A milk on the simplified grading, he will see that he buys from the producer milk that is either produced under proper conditions, so that it will not develop too many bacteria, or milk that is passed through proper pasteurising processes, which make it the best grade of milk for human consumption. There will be much quicker progress in getting the retailer to look after the producer by these means, than by pushing Government inspection right away to the producer himself.
I wish to raise a few points by way of question. The first is, what is to be done in those districts in which at the present time the registering of retailers is practically a dead letter and where, even although my right hon. Friend proposes to give the county councils powers, the county councils do not choose to exercise those powers? It will he no good to say retailers are to be registered, if they are to be registered in some counties and not in others. There must be uniformity, and that is one of the things which is really important if we are to get a better milk supply. At present there is no power in the Bill for getting uniformity among the district councils. The only power is that the county council "may"—not "shall"—if it pleases and if it finds a district council is not registering the retailers properly take over the power of that district council and do the work for it. What will be done if not only the district council but the county council fails to take proper action?
Secondly, I think we should know what exactly is covered by the word "retailer"—if the producer, the ordinary farmer who, as so many of them do, sells a few quarts of milk to private customers is to be covered, even though in the main he is a wholesaler and sends his milk off by train. I imagine there is no intention yet of having registration of the ordinary milk producer in the country if he happens to retail a little milk, but sends practically all his milk off by train. Probably that is as far as we can go at present. I do not think you can register all producers of milk, but I would
like to have that point cleared up, and to know to what extent registration applies to the ordinary farmer and whether it covers him if he is in fact to any extent a retailer. Then with regard to the grading which is intended in the Bill I am bound to say that, both in another place and here, all that has been presented to us rather as a pig in a poke. I admit it is an easier task for my right hon. Friend to get the Bill through without having to tell us what he is going to do with regard to these grades. That, however, is one of the central points of the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman will have to be a little more explicit—as will also his representative in another place—as to what is definitely intended. He said to-night, and it was said in another place over and over again, that the new grading "certified," "Grade A" and so forth would be worked out afterwards. The House cannot be asked to give all sorts of powers of grading and not to know at all what is intended. I have no reason to think there will not be fairly considerable agreement on the matter. In regard to what is meant by pasteurised milk, for instance, I think most people agree it must be pasteurisation by the whole process, and there will be agreement, too, as to the new Grade A that it should not be merely tested bacteriologically, but should go much further than that. Before the Bill leaves the House and is passed into law we should have some closer idea of what is really meant, and I should like to know whether the Minister has it in mind to set up any standard of visible dirt in milk. I do not think it is possible to do that usefully. That is another matter in which people who are interested in the question ought to know the line the Minister is likely to take with regard to these grades before we give him power to set them up.
10.0 P.M.
In Clause 4 the Bill provides that no person shall add any colouring matter or water or any dried or condensed milk or any fluid reconstituted there from to milk intended for sale. There is no prohibition, however, as to selling reconstituted milk as milk. There is no prohibition against a man taking dried or condensed milk, adding water to it, and selling that as milk. It is something very different from milk, and should not be sold as such. Clause 5 deals with the prevention
of tuberculosis. I think my right hon. Friend ought to go slow about that extraordinarily important and very difficult question. I believe the hon. Member for the Wavertree Division of Liverpool (Lieut.-Colonel Raw) is one of the greatest authorities on the subject of tuberculosis alive at the present time, and I have seen it stated as his opinion that as long as children can get enough milk a certain amount of cow tuberculosis infection in that milk is not harmful, but may be beneficial, because it tends to immunise the children who take it from human tuberculosis. If that is so, it revolutionises a great many of our previous ideas, and we ought not to hurry too quickly with regard to Regulations as to tuberculosis. Many people hold that the repeated testing of cows with the tuber culin test is a mistake, and it has been suggested recently—again quite contrary to previous theory—that the constant testing of cows with the tuberculin test tends actually to infect the cows with tuberculosis and to make them react, whereas if they had not been tested so often they would not have reacted at all
With regard to tuberculosis in cattle as in human beings there is a great deal to learn medically. My right hon. Friend has not laid down the law with regard to that matter, but has put it over into the domain of a Committee of Medical Research who, if anybody can arrive at a conclusion, is the body to arrive at it. The only other point which is of particular interest to the farmer arises on Clause 9. The farmer has long suffered under the grievance that he was capable of being convicted on the analysis of a sample of his milk taken after the milk had left his custody and taken out of a vessel which had not been sealed or effectively closed. The farmer has alleged that in such cases the vessel has often been tampered with. It is often alleged that porters at a railway station or other persons have taken the lid off and taken a couple of pints out and put water back instead of the milk or that the milk has been tampered with in some form or another. I am glad the Bill proposed to deal with this matter. The Bill provides that a person shall not be convicted in respect of a sample taken after the milk has left his custody, if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the churn in which the milk was contained was effectively closed and sealed at the time when it left his custody and
was not so closed when it reached the person by whom the sample was taken. It has been suggested to me that it is going to be rather difficult to administer the Measure in this respect and I ask for further information on this point. The railway companies sometimes refuse to accept churns which are properly closed and sealed. That may at first sight seem to be a difficulty. The railway companies, I suppose, refuse to accept a sealed or closed churn because there are unscrupulous farmers who try to swindle them by saying that the churn is half empty and only paying for the transport of half the milk, when really the churn is three-quarters, or it may be quite, full; and the railway companies have said, "We must have the right to open these churns to see how much milk is in them." It seems to me that that ought to be capable of being got over. I think the railway companies ought to accept the churns properly closed and sealed in order to meet this important point. Of course, the way to detect the attempted fraud by the farmer is to weigh the milk, but the difficulty is that the milk is landed at the station in the early hours of the morning two or three minutes before the train goes, and is rushed by the porters across the platform into the waiting vans, but I think it would be fair for the railway companies to say, "If you want not to pay for the full churn, you must have your milk at the station a quarter of an hour before the train is timed to leave, so as to give a chance of weighing it."

Sir F. BANBURY: How can that be done in summer time?

Mr. ACLAND: A quarter of an hour is a quarter of an hour, even in summer time.

Sir F. BANBURY: If you already get up at three, you will not want to get up at a quarter to three.

Mr. R. McLAREN: Why not tap these cans to find out whether they are full or not?

Mr. ACLAND: I do not think it would be legal proof of what a churn contained, to tap it. That point can be got over only by weighing. I have a good many
other points, but I will not put them now. I do not want, when the Bill gets into Committee, to obstruct on any of these questions, but I think this is a matter of first-class importance from the point of view of the public health, and I am sure that in Committee my right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider the points I have raised, and others that will be raised in the course- of the Debate. If I have seemed to be a critic, I am a friendly critic. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing in the Bill, and I think he is on the lines of least resistance, and that on the whole we have got to go slowly, but we need a Bill on the basis of which we can start a real campaign for the consumption of more milk, and better milk.

Sir WATSON CHEYNE: I want to say a few words with regard to milk from the health point of view. You may look at milk in two ways, one as a food and one as a possible carrier of dangerous organisms and so as a producer of disease. I will not go into the question of milk as a food, for what I want to speak about is especially the danger of tuberculosis in milk. Milk may be a carrier of disease in two ways. Milk may carry typhoid, not through the cow having typhoid fever, but because the water used to dilute the milk may have come from an infected well, or because the milkman is a carrier of it, having the typhoid himself. Similarly with diphtheria or scarlet fever, but in none of those cases is it infected till it comes into the outer world. In the case of tuberculosis, however, the milk carries the germs of an extremely serious and fatal disease from a cow infected with that disease, and I think that anyone who has had dealings with tuberculous diseases in men would feel that no pains should be spared in preventing the carrying of milk from the cow to man. What has struck me as extraordinary is the difficulty that one, has in getting agreement with agriculturists or dairy people as to the necessity for taking special precautions in regard to tuberculosis. I cannot believe it is due to anything else than want of appreciation of the real danger. I cannot believe that anyone would knowingly sell milk containing tuberculous virus, knowing that, by doing so, he was spreading the disease among the children and the younger members of the community.
I am very glad to see what the Minister has said about tuberculous milk in the Bill, but there are two points which I think would improve matters. In the first place, the Bill says:
No person shall knowingly … sell…the milk of a cow suffering from tuberculosis of the udder.
That leaves a loophole for evasion which seems to me almost to spoil the value of the Clause, because anyone can say he did not knowingly sell such milk. It is put in here, but it is not allowed to be an excuse in other matters. For instance, a man goes into a restaurant and orders a pie, and eats it, and is taken ill from ptomaine poisoning. He brings the restaurant keeper to book and compels him to pay expenses and damages, although the restaurant keeper undoubtedly sold that diseased pie unknowingly, and I do not see why it should not be just as necessary for a dairyman to know whether his milk does or does not contain tuberculous virus as it is for the restaurant keeper to see that what he sells is not poisoned. I do not, therefore, like this term "knowingly," because it would be very easy for a dairyman to say that he did not know, and I should like the Minister to consider the question whether he should retain that word "knowingly" or not.
The other point I want to make is in regard to the latter part of the Clause, where it says:
No person shall knowingly…sell…the milk of a cow suffering from tuberculosis of the udder.
Scientifically, that may be quite correct, and I do not believe there is much danger in the milk of a cow, even if it suffer from a general tuberculous disease, unless the udder itself is affected, but I am afraid that, by putting those words in the Bill, you will mislead the farmer, who will concentrate all his attention on the question of whether or not the udder is tuberculous, and so will forget to look to see whether the milk is free from bacilli. This question of tuberculosis in the udder is an extremely difficult one. Diagnosis for tuberculous disease by external handling of an udder is almost impossible, and, in any ease, plenty of expert veterinary evidence would be given in a Court of Law, some saying that the udder was tuberculous, and some saying it was not. I do not believe you would get a conviction, in any case, if something be not said about the im-
portant point, namely, whether the milk contains tubercle bacilli. One knows quite easily whether the milk is tuberculous or not by examining it microscopically for tubercle bacilli. The farmer naturally does not do it, but, of course, skilled people can do it, and it can be done quickly, cheaply and accurately by a microscopical examination of the milk. The milk can be examined for a few shillings, and the matter decided absolutely. Of course, if it became a necessary thing to do, there is no doubt that a class of men would very quickly grow up and become quite expert in ascertaining tubercle bacilli.
I would like to see in the Bill after the words "milk of a cow suffering from tuberculosis of the udder," the words "as determined by the presence, of tubercle bacilli in the milk," or else leave out the words referring to the udder, and say "sell, or offer or expose for sale, the milk of a cow containing tubercle bacilli," The danger of partaking of that milk is so great, that it is absolutely essential that information should be obtained by anyone who is selling milk as to whether he is selling milk containing tubercle bacilli. Tuberculous disease of the intestines, bones, joints and so forth in this country is to a great extent due to that particular form of infection which affects the cow, and I cannot imagine a man who is selling milk, knowing these great dangers that arise, not trying, as far as he can, to ascertain whether he is selling milk which contains this terrible poison or not, and if the subject were once organised and became the rule, it could be perfectly, simply and cheaply done. I was talking only the other day with a doctor who had practised in America for some time in one of the States, where very stringent precautions, which are smiled at here, are enforced, and he told me that he had been several years in private practice there, and had constantly visited the large hospitals in the city and immediate neigh bourhood. He had never once all the time he was there seen a case of tuberculous glands in the neck. You have only to go to any hospital in this kingdom, especially children's hospitals, and you will see cases of tuberculous glands in the neck, but in this particular State in America, as the result of the stringent regulations made by the Government in regard to tuberculous milk, that form of
tuberculous disease is not in evidence at all. I think that in this respect this country, which for many years was the leading country in all matters of public-health, has fallen behind in this matter. It is the greatest pity in the world that it should be so. What I want to point out here is that you are dealing with one of the most terrible poisons that can be introduced into anyone. If a milkman were to sell milk diluted with arsenic you would say that he was a terrible man and that that was a terrible thing to do— even though it were done accidentally. Why should he be allowed to sell milk filled with tubercle bacilli of the most virulent description? This is a matter that deserves most serious consideration. I am very glad indeed to see the Minister has taken up this matter. He is on the right lines, but I beg him to strengthen the Bill and to think over what I have said about making the demonstration of tubercle bacilli the real test for the regulation of the supply.

Mr. MYERS: I regret that I am unable to share the enthusiasm expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland). At the same time I should say that those with whom I am associated will not vote against the Bill on the principle of taking what we can get. We deplore the further postponement of the Milk and Dairies Act, 1915. We consider the further suspension of that Act to be regrettable, and believe that under present and existing circumstances it cannot be justified. We are entitled to expect from the Minister of Health, having regard to the suspension of the Act, some alternative conditions in the present Bill which will meet the requirements of the, existing situation.
With my right hon. Friend I share the view that the provision of a wholesome, plentiful, and cheap supply of milk has become a serious and pressing public question. If we accept that position, and we look at this Bill, we are compelled to admit that it makes little contribution towards making good that condition. The Minister of Health excused the further postponement of the 1915 Act chiefly on the ground of expense. I want, however, to suggest that many of the most valuable and important provisions of the 1915 Act were provisions of the greatest advantage
to the community and could have been put into operation without the expenditure of a single penny. The present Bill, where it sets out to remedy the grievances of the existing system, falls far short of the mark, and puts into operation some very clumsy expedients and alternatives. Clause 5, which has already been referred to, imposes a penalty upon an individual who knowingly by himself, or any servant or agent, sells, or exposes for sale, the milk of a cow suffering from tuberculosis. I look upon that Clause, well-intentioned though it may be, as being weak and futile. Does the Government or any hon. Member think that any individual will offer for sale tuberculous milk if he knows that that milk is in that particular condition? I agree that human nature is differently constituted. I am going to give milk vendors the benefit; of the doubt and I say that, whether from the point of view of the producer or the retailer, there is not a man in a thousand would sell tuberculous milk if lie knew that it-was so affected. Even if it be admitted that an individual here and there may commit an offence of that character, surely it does not need the provisions of this Clause to bring that individual to justice. How is the retailer or the producer of milk to know that an animal is producing tuberculous milk, or how is the retailer to know that he is selling it in that condition when he gets hold of it? As has already been stated, it is exceedingly difficult to know when milk is affected with tubercle bacilli. A clinical examination of an animal will not always disclose the presence of tuberculosis and even when the tuberculin test is applied, it may tell us that there is tuberculosis in that animal, but it does not tell us where it is.
Those entitled to speak with authority say that from 25 to 30 per cent, of all milk-giving animals in the country suffer from tuberculosis in some form or another, and that only a comparatively small number—I think it is about 3 per cent.—give tubercle milk. The difficulty of the situation is emphasised by these facts, and they seem to establish the necessity of dealing with the milk not as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but by going to the sources of supply and endeavouring to put the matter right in that quarter. There is a very simple provision in the Act of 1915, which, I think, ought to be included in this Bill, and
some local authorities have already adopted that principle. Some municipalities employ a veterinary surgeon whose duties are to inspect dairy cattle in their area once or twice a year. There is no law to compel them to undertake that work, but in the 1915 Act there is a provision where a number of authorities may combine for that purpose, employ a veterinary surgeon, and set him looking after the dairy cows in that way. The right hon. Gentleman well knows that in those parts of the country where this principle has been adopted there has been a general advance in the type of dairy cows kept, and there has been a lower type of animals where this inspection is not in operation. I think such inspection ought to be made general, and the Clause in the 1915 Act should be included in this Bill.

Sir A. MOND: Which Section in the 1915 Act is it that is referred to by the hon. Member?

Mr. MYERS: It is Section 10. The effects of tuberculous milk upon the health of the population is well understood. I have been looking up the findings of the medical officer to the Board of Education in connection with this matter, and his report says that something like 50 per cent. of tuberculosis in the abdomen is due to the bacteria from milk affected with tubercle. That report commits itself to the declaration that 85 per cent. of tuberculosis in the glands of children under five years of age is due to the infection of tuberculous milk, and in a summary of conclusions which that report presents it is stated that out of 1,400,000 children who were inspected in 1920—a routine inspection and not an inspection of special cases—over 6,000 children were found suffering from tuberculosis—that excluding all suspected cases. The medical officer to the Board of Education also committed himself to this declaration:
We must restrict and, if possible, stop the consumption of tuberculous infected milk.
My view is that we are not going to prevent the consumption of such milk by this Bill. We could prevent it by going to the sources of supply. It will be 12 years ago or more when at Health Conferences in different parts of the country one made the acquaintance of the hon. and gallant Member for Wavertree
(Lieut.-Colonel Raw), and I well remember how he startled his hearers by suggesting very drastic methods of eliminating tuberculosis from this country. I am speaking from memory, but the hon. and gallant Member's declarations at that time made a very profound impression on my mind, and had not a little to do with my pursuing the investigation of problems of public health. I remember hearing the hon. and gallant Member declare that he would slaughter every milk-producing animal in this country, even if it involved a cost of £10,000,000, because, when that had been done, we could have a fresh start so far as milk production was concerned. Having regard to existing circumstances, financial and otherwise, that might be considered an extreme position to take up, but What a tremendous gap is there between that declaration and Clause 5 of this Bill. The latter says we are to prosecute any person who knowingly offers for sale tuberculous infected milk, but we are to go on producing out of the 3 per cent. of animals in this country that throw off tuberculous milk. I have heard my hon. and gallant Friend state that if the milk from one infected animal was mixed with milk from 25 other animals it would contaminate the whole supply. Who is going to challenge the authority of an hon Member who speaks with such knowledge of this particular matter? Clause 5 of this Bill is a long way short of Section 5 of the 1915 Act. That would have done more service in this direction, but Clause 5 of this Bill will do very little.
I want to inquire in a friendly way what this Bill does to stabilise the general quality of the milk which is consumed in the country. I can quite understand the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from this side. His chief concern seemed to be with the producer of the milk, but I think we ought to protect the consumer at every point, and the difference between this Bill and the Act of 1915 is, in my judgment, that, while the Act of 1915 had a tendency to go for the producer of the milk, we are now, by this Bill, throwing all the onus and responsibility upon the retailer. I want to put to the Minister a proposition in connection with this matter of the low quality of milk. If we go back for a year or two we shall probably
discover, from the records of prosecutions for poor milk, that those prosecutions were for adulterated milk; but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a change in those circumstances in recent times, and that comparatively few prosecutions to-day are for adulterated milk. The prosecutions to-day are for a low standard of milk—milk deficient in the fat content which gives sustenance to those who consume the milk. If that be so, it is an indication that there is a general low standard of milk in the country.
We hear something about milk being graded; my view of the matter is that the milk supply has been degraded at the present time, and that there is a considerably lower standard of milk on sale than was the case in days gone by; while we have the retailer standing before the justices and vigorously protesting that he is selling the milk in the condition in which he received it. In the majority of cases he is right, but still the penalty comes upon him for selling low-grade milk in the condition in which he received it. Some time ago, having seen some statistics in the Board of Trade returns in connection with the matter, I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade asking for further information, and I got a letter from the President of the Board of Trade to the effect that, in 1920 and 1921, 22,622 mechanical cream separators were imported into this country. These things were not imported for ornamental purposes, but for use, and hon. Members will have seen these mechanical appliances at work. I wonder if they have sampled the milk before it went into one of them and after it came out. If so, they will understand the difference in the article. In the old days, when cream was taken off for any purpose, the milk had to stand all night. It was then old milk, or blue milk, and was sold at a copper or two for a bucketful. Often it was given to the pigs. But now, within 10 minutes of the milk being produced, it goes through the mechanical separator while still warm, and all the fatty content is extracted. The milk is still warm; it is new milk: and I assert that this milk is not now given to the pigs, is not being sold at a low price for a considerable quantity, but finds its way on to the market, and much of it. in our
industrial towns, is sold and consumed as the genuine article. An hon. Member says I have got to prove it. I am expressing the view that it is done.

Mr. G. EDWARDS: I do not believe it.

Mr. MYERS: Hence the prosecutions for the sale of milk, not adulterated, but deficient in fatty solids. Now it is urged that we should have a classification of milk. I am down on this classification and grading of milk, because, as we move in the direction of grading the milk on the lines which have been suggested, the low-grade milk will get where it gets to now. It will go into the homes of the poorest section of the population, because their purchasing power compels them to purchase the cheapest article. They buy the commodity which has its sustaining properties extracted, and do not get the benefit of the higher-grade milk which is on the market. We urge that there should be one standard of pure milk for consumption by all classes of the community, and we urge that there should be a Clause inserted in this Bill to establish a fixed minimum of fatty content in milk, below which standard milk shall not be sold as genuine.
After we have dealt with quality and with the evils of the existing system, what about the quantity of milk? Does the Bill do anything in the direction of giving a greater quantity to the population? We have been living in days of high prices and scarcity of milk supply. Before the War the supply of milk worked out at less than half a pint per day per head of the population, and in 1918 and 1919 a quarter of a pint was about the average available. During the war period, when restrictions wore very extensive, when everyone had to sacrifice something, the Food Committee, which had this matter in hand, made an allowance of a pint and a half per day for every child under 18 months, and one pint a day for children above five years. A quarter of a pint per day per head of the population is altogether insufficient. This Bill makes no attempt to improve the supply available. We have a mass of unemployment. We are talking about land settlement. For every 100 acres of arable and pasture land there are only half the number of milch cows that there are in Belgium, Holland and Denmark. Then with re-
gard to the question of price. [Interruption.] I can quite understand the sarcastic references of hon. Members opposite. They will not be troubled with the question of price. The question with them will be one of supply and the price will be quite immaterial. But to a large section of the population both the price and the supply of milk are matters of very serious concern. We have been living in days of high prices and the operations and the ramifications of the Milk Trust have been generally discussed. There is nothing in the Bill to protect the population against excessive prices. It: makes no provision for labelling the vessels in which milk is contained similar to the provisions in the 1915 Act. One Section in the 1915 Act stipulates that every vessel shall be labelled with the type of milk it contains. That will not cost anything and it would at least protect the poorest of the community. There is nothing in the Bill to compel local authorities by pasteurization or any similar method to ensure that some of the worst properties of the milk are extracted. Further, there is nothing in the Bill which extends the powers of local authorities. We had a Bill before the House last year which set forth very definite proposals in respect of the powers of local authorities. It enabled them to purchase and sell such milk within their area, to make milk products from surplus milk, to distribute milk within their area and in fact to do everything from the point of view of the production and distribution of milk. There are anomalies which ought to be removed by this Bill. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to incorporate this provision so far as the powers of local authorities are concerned from the Bill of last year in the present Bill. I was a member of a municipality before I came to this House and we started a municipal farm. We had from 20 to 25 head of cattle, and we produced what was recognised as the best milk in the locality; but we could not sell the milk. We had to enter into a contract with a milk vendor, and the only stipulation we could make was that he should supply the infirmary. It was one of those conditions that was honoured, but which we could not insist upon. The milk was taken by hotels and restaurants in gallons, and the people who only wanted gills and pints, the ratepayers of the district who
maintained the farm, could not get any of the milk because it had to be sold to the ordinary milk vendor, and disposed of in large quantities. There ought to be provision for municipalities extending not only to the production of milk, but to their being able to sell it when they have produced it. The powers of Clause 6 in the Bill of last year would meet these requirements, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should incorporate it in this Bill. It would enable the local authorities to set a standard both in milk production and milk distribution. The right hon. Gentleman has a very responsible finding to go upon. I ask him to compare the provisions of this Bill with the findings of the Astor Committee. The Astor Committee went into this question of milk production and distribution, and this is what they say should be the policy of the future in respect to this question of milk supply:
To bring about the utmost possible economy in production in order that:

(i) Prices may be kept at as low a level as possible to the consumer, and consumption thus increased to the desired standard;
(ii) an adequate supply may be brought within the reach of the poorest families. (b) To improve the hygienic quality of m ilk, and to ensure that that portion of the supply which requires or is subject to pasteurisation is efficiently asteurised under supervision.
(c) To increase the total supply in order to meet the extended consumption that should follow improved quality and the education of the public with regard to the nutritive properties of milk.
(d) To prevent the exploitation of the producer or the consumer by any trust or combination, either of a provincial, national, or international character."
There is a charter for the milk policy of the future which would bring benefits and advantages to the community if carried out. This Bill does not attempt, and the right hon. Gentleman does not pretend that it attempts, to approach that standard. We, knowing the working people and the difficulties that they have to encounter in regard to milk supply, both from the point of view of quality and price, ask that there should be a much higher standard given to them than this Bill gives. We shall vote for the Bill, not because we are satisfied with what it contains, but in the hope that it may be the starting point of greater achieve-
ments in the direction of securing the benefits of a cheap and pure supply for the people.

Dr. ADDISON: Those who are interested in this Bill will regret that it has come on so late at night. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health made one remark in regard to this Bill with which I thoroughly agree. He said it was a little Bill. Last week we had a Bill introduced ostensibly as a little Bill, which some of us had no difficulty in showing was a very big Bill. This is a little Bill. It is an exiguous affair. This professes to be a Milk Bill. I notice that in one of the Clauses it is made an offence to add water to the milk. Clause 4 provides that no person shall add any water to the milk—a thoroughly original and enterprising proposal. As a matter of fact, the Bill ought to be described as a "Milk and Water Bill." That is what it is. As the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) said, the Bill will be the first Milk Act to be put into operation. As he said, and as the Minister of Health indicated, it is very discreditable to this country that that should be so.
What are the two big requirements of the day in this matter? It is not a question of harrying unduly the unfortunate middleman who has a shop, nor of imposing swarms of inspectors on the farms of the producers. We shall never get what is needed in this country until we frame our policy to encourage the production of a much more abundant supply of cleaner milk. That is what the public really need. I cannot see that this Bill—I am sorry to say it—with the exception of one provision, is going to help us on that road in the very least. Let me refer to two of the main points in the Bill. We know that in the milk sold there is often, unfortunately, a great amount of dirt of various kinds. I am not going into details, the question is how it gets there. It gets there, to some extent, in the cowshed; not so much in the shop; but a good deal in the homes of the people. If we want to prevent this dirt getting into the milk, let us try to frame our policies and proceedings to help people to keep it out. Under the Act of 1915, there are, in this connection, some very valuable proposals, which would, at least, accomplish something. In this Bill, so far as I can
see, there is nothing whatever to improve the cleanliness of milk, except that a local authority, by whom a register of milk is kept, may do something or other to a man who is on the register. A man need not be on the register to sell milk, and it does not follow that a local authority need keep a register. All they may do is something to the man who is on the register if the public health "is likely to be endangered by any act or default of any person being a retailer of milk." That will mean that a certain number of men, whose milk is perhaps grossly dirty, will be proceeded against, but we are not going to remove the causes of the uncleanliness of the milk in that way. You will, to some extent, prevent its condition becoming worse, but there are provisions in the Act of 1915 which would have gone some distance in that way. Under various paragraphs in Clause I of that Act the Local Government Board is given power to issue instructions and directions
For securing the cleanliness of milk stores, milk shops and milk vessels used for containing milk for sale by such persons;
For prescribing the precautions to be taken for protecting milk against infection or contamination;
For preventing danger to health from the sale for human consumption, or from the use in the manufacture of products for human consumption, of infected, contaminated, or dirty milk.
In other words, we should have had, under that provision, a body of persons in the country whose duty it would have been to do their best—corporations, farmers, producers and the people who brought the milk round-by the dissemination of sensible, practical instruction, by demonstrations and the rest of it, to try and tune up the general standard of public opinion on this question. As soon as public opinion is instructed on this question it will begin to make its influence felt all along the line as far back as the cowshed. We shall not get clean milk in this country until we have so instructed public opinion. The Act of 1915 tried to approach the problem to some extent from that end. All this Bill does is to impose certain penalties on unfortunate persons who have shops, but they are not to be told, and the public are not to be told, where the dirt comes from, and what steps are to be taken to prevent it getting there in future. But that is the only thing that matters.
The Act of 1915 contains certain provisions, the place of which is now taken by Clause 5 of this Bill. I suppose that that is put in because we have got to say "tuberculosis" somewhere or other in a milk Bill, but it is absolutely inoperative. It says that no person shall "knowingly" sell milk from a cow with a tubercular adder. The man is not to be subject to a penalty unless it can be proved that he knows that the milk came from a cow with tuberculosis of the udder. Milk comes hundreds of miles to London through various channels, and the milk from one place is mixed up with the milk from other places. How can any man know that milk is infected with tuberculosis, or that it comes from any particular cow? The Clause will be inoperative. There were certain provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1915 which I think might be modified with advantage. I remember being on a Committee which endeavoured to secure some modifications. I am certain that when this Bill gets into Committee the Committee will not allow it to stand as it is. The Act of 1915 enabled milk found to be infected to be traced from one area to another to its source. All this Bill will do will be to enable a man to be prosecuted for selling milk which he knows to be tubercular, but there is no provision for tracing milk which is found to be tubercular home to its source.
11.0 p.m.
What is wanted is a sensible arrangement whereby the milk can be traced back to its source. There is no authority here to trace the milk to the source. I cannot understand what is the policy. Unless it happens to be the farmer who retails the milk, there is no possibility of getting at the source of supply, for the great bulk of the milk sold in the towns is sold from the shops of retailers who are not producers. There were practicable means of tracing milk to the source under the Act of 1915. The reason why that provision is not incorporated in this Bill is that it would involve the employment of a few people who are competent to do the tracing. That would be very unpopular. There would be the usual newspaper stunt served up about more salaried officials. It is playing the game of the ostrich to pretend that yon can do anything to reduce tubercle in milk unless you go the other way
about it The truth is that we are afraid to incur the odium that would fall upon us, because the "Daily Mail" or some other paper would have, large head-lines about swarms or inspectors, and all that sort of thing. Therefore, we are to be content with hospitals swarming with children who have swollen glands in their necks, the convalescent homes at Margate and Rams-gate and all around the coast, with their shoals of inmates infected with bovine tuberculosis. We shall continue to spend money on these lovely homes, rather than incur the odium of employing a few people who can trace the source of the disease. This Clause is a futile expedient. As far as Clause 5 is concerned, it is contemptible window dressing, and I hope no member of the public will think that his child will be in the least safer because of Clause 5. We want to devise a scheme, if one can be devised, whereby the farmers will have their interests and the dairymen will have their interests in producing and selling clean milk. That can only be done by a thorough-going process of popular, commonsense, instruction and the spread of information. There is not an atom of that provided for in the whole of this Bill. There has been a great deal of talk about the provision of clean milk and undoubtedly clean milk can be produced as has been shown by certain pioneers, like Lord Bledisloe and the hon. Member for Southend-on-Sea (Viscount Elveden) who have done a great deal to educate the people. What is wanted is to spread information among the public. You want to get it into the mind of the mother of the child exactly what pure milk means and she will be willing to pay more for a better supply; indeed, she will demand it. But all we have got here is this Clause 3, which enables us to grade milk. As far as it goes, it is the only part of the Bill which is of any use. It enables us to do something about the grading and designations of milk and so on, and my right hon. Friend says that Regulations dealing with these matters will be laid. We shall see how the matter develops under these Regulations, and what it may be possible to do so that the public will know they are getting clean milk, and milk can be clean just like any other fluid. At any rate, by intelligent methods—and not costly methods—it
can be prevented from being made very dirty, and these are the lines we should follow. I have relieved my mind as to the whole of the Bill, of which only Clause 3 is any good. I think that is going to help us along the road, but the rest of it, as far as I can see, achieves nothing, and may, indeed, prove a danger to the public by giving them a false sense of security. I hope this discuission will do good by directing attention to the subject. We have more to gain by commonsense discussion and by the spread of wholesome information than we have by all the Bills which this House can pass.

Sir D. MACLEAN: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Colonel L. Wilson) if the next Order on the Paper, the Allotments (Scotland) Bill, will be taken to-night? It is not a controversial measure, but some hon. Members desire to speak upon it, and I do not say it would be unfair, but it would be against the wishes of many hon. Members that it should be taken at this late hour.

Colonel LESLIE WILSON (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): As the Leader of the House announced early this afternoon, it was hoped that we should be able to get the first four Bills on the Paper, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) that it would lead to considerable divergence of opinion if we were to take the Allotments (Scotland) Bill at this hour of the evening. Therefore, I would suggest, if it meet with the wishes of the House, that we should get the Second Beading of the Bill at present under discussion, and take the next three Orders on the Paper—Air Ministry (Kenley Common Acquisition) Bill, Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, and Universities (Scotland) Bill—which are really non-controversial, and then take the Second Reading of the Allotments (Scotland) Bill as second Order on Friday, and I trust it would not take very long before we should obtain that Second Beading.

Viscount ELVEDEN: As the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Shorediteh (Dr. Addison), has referred to me, I should say that I support this measure
wholeheartedly, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in regard to Clause 5. If there be a few people who do take advantage of milking obviously tuberculous animals and selling that milk, I do not see why the farmers should not come under this Clause. If there be any who do sell milk from animals that are obviously tuberculous, they should be stopped and have heavy penalties put upon them, and I say that, not only from the public health point of view, but because I think it will help considerably to relieve the minds of those people who are thinking about tuberculous milk. You cannot expect people to buy large quantities of milk when that milk is dirty, and when they cannot tell which is clean and which is not; but to protect them from the worst stories that are now going about as to the methods of some farmers—I believe they are very few indeed—will do some good and something to produce more milk and get more people to drink it. On the other hand, I am glad it is not put on the whole community of farmers to find out whether or not the milk is tuberculous, and as to finding out whether or not your cows are tuberculous, it is almost hopeless. It is very likely that 50 per cent. of the cows would react to the test. They might not give tuberculous milk, but they do react to the test, and I think there is a point which hon. Members should have in their minds when considering this matter, that a cow that has got tuberculosis, and has not got it in the udder, very often gives tubercle in its excreta, and that that tubercle can be kept out of the milk if the milk be cleanly handled. Therefore a great deal of good can be done if you can get milk cleanly handled. You will reduce the number of tubercle in the milk enormously, in my opinion, but it must be a matter of opinion until we have tried it, and I believe this Bill will do a great deal in that direction. It will give time for the very education that the right hon. Member for Shoreditch wants. The public are already beginning to think already our numbers of Grade A certified producers- -I am the Chairman of their Council— are gradually increasing. The amount of milk that is being sold of those present qualities is increasing very fast, but of course it is a tiny drop in the ocean. Still, it is increasing, and every day we hear of supplies going to new towns, and it is
very encouraging. The fact that the public are beginning to think of the necessity of this subject being taken up is better, I think, than the large number of inspectors that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch would have appointed. We may have to have them later, but we shall only get good work out of them when the public really want the article in large quantities, and I am convinced that the magnitude of this Bill is admirable for the circumstances of the moment.

Mr. HURD: The right hon. Gentleman who has spoken from the front Opposition Bench is greatly enamoured of the Act of 1915. I think I can assure my right hon. Friend, coming as I do from a milk country, that that Act would have knocked out of production two-thirds of the men who now send milk to this City. The points which the right hon. Gentleman took are just those points which, in my judgment, for what it is worth, would have made the Act absolutely unworkable so far as a large number of producers are concerned. I am sure the Minister is acting wisely in making an attempt at persuasion rather than taking futile action which would kill production. Under Clause 5, it will be possible to provide against the farmer who knowingly commits the offence with which Clause 5 deals. After all, we are all concerned in obtaining the best, purest and cleanest milk for the community at large, at the lowest possible price. My hon. Friend (Mr. Myers) is very alarmed because of what he called the production of blue milk, but he seems to forget that that milk, if it does not contain three per cent. of fat and eight and a half per cent. of other solids, is illegal, and the seller of it is severely dealt with.
I am glad to say in the presence of the Minister of Agriculture, who comes from my own county, that the farmer is getting at least some consideration. Clause 2, for instance, which deals with the notice of any alleged infringment, does give in its present form, as it did not, I believe, when first introduced in another place, fair notice, and treats the farmer with some consideration. Also in Clause 9, Sub-Section (3), a much fairer arrangement has been made, so that the responsibility of the farmer does not go beyond the farmer's control of his product.
Clause 8, I take it, is from the 1915 Act. It deals with the question of the importation of milk intended for sale for human consumption. The right hon. Gentleman will say that this Bill does not concern itself with condensed milk imported from abroad, but I want to call attention to the fact that a great change has taken place since the Act of 1915. it is a question now not of imported fresh milk, which is very difficult of importation, but of this growing importation of milk in condensed form. In 1921 the imports of this machine-skimmed milk reached 870,000 cwts., or an increase of 130 per cent. over 1920, and in the first five months of the present year the importations of this condensed milk were almost double those of the corresponding period of 1921. That is a serious position if the milk be below standard. Looking at the analyses made of the importations of tinned milk from America, it will be seen how large a percentage is below the standard we impose for our own home product. In the case of our home milk you tell the public whether or not it is a good article; in the case of the imported milk you do not. When attempting by this Bill to educate the public as to what is a good article in the matter of fresh milk, we should also see that it is our business to educate them as to what is a good article in the milk imported in tins in greatly increased volume. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Bill is in Committee to consider the introduction of a clause dealing with the matter. An important point was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland). If we want to improve the condition of our underdeveloped children we must pay far more attention to this milk question. To get more milk consumed we must improve the quality of the product. By this Bill we are taking a considerable step forward on the way to improvement, and I would seriously ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot take some action also in regard to the imported product?

Mr. WATERSON: There are one or two points in the Bill to which no previous speaker has referred, and which I am anxious to deal with. Let me, however, firstly refer to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) as to some
sort of resolution that he regretted has been passed not only by the Co-operative Congress, but by the Trade Union Congress.

Mr. ACLAND: The Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress.

Mr. WATERSON: Since that statement was made, and having no knowledge of it myself, I have made inquiries, and up till now I have not been able to discover that that took place. If my right hon. Friend will give me some information about it we might be able to put something effectively relevant in one of the Clauses of the Bill. The Minister of Health said the Bill was a very modest one. That is part of our complaint: it is too modest. The Minister should have been a little bolder. Naturally we should have liked the Bill to go on somewhat different lines —on the lines of the Bill of 1915. This Bill seems to throw the onus of responsibility entirely upon the retailer or vendor of milk. We feel that the onus should be placed, not only on the retailer, but should be shared by the producer, and that the middleman should also carry his share of it. The point I am particularly anxious to raise is in Clause 2 —registration. Some of us feel that all purveyors of milk should be compulsorily registered, and not only the business premises but the firm as well. In this connection we have to link Clause 5, and we welcome that Clause. It provides for the prosecution of persons who knowingly offer for sale milk from cows suffering from tuberculosis. The omission of producers from registration is a very great blot on the Bill because it will make it passible for people who in the past have been convicted for an offence more than once, or have even suffered imprisonment, to enter into business as producers, whereas the retailer would be under the power of the local authority and his licence could be revoked. That point ought to be considered in Committee, when I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay a little attention to it in order to see if the powers can be strengthened so as to place those convicted for selling affected milk on the same basis as the retailer.
As regards Clause 2 we feel that the onus as regards the distribution of milk falls solely upon the retailer, and it
should not. Clause 3 affects the question of pasteurisation, and it means the production of milk of varying grades. I want to elicit some information on this point. Many of us fear that if this particular Order is issued under this Clause very grave consequences, and on this point I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman a very plain and straight question, and it is well the Government or the Ministry who has to apply this Bill take advantage of the word "pasteurisation" so as to prohibit the sale of sterilised milk. This is a vital question which affects thousands of concerns and they are anxious to know as vendors of sterilised milk their exact position.
There is another point with regard to pasteurisation and that is the process. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) gave us very briefly his opinion as to that process. I understand that 90 per cent. of the plant for pasteurising milk already exists in this country upon the flash or continuous process and I want to ask the Government not. to exclude that apparatus or method which produces the safe milk, whether it is produced by the flash process or the holding process. As far as the flash process is concerned there has been an objection and it is said that unless it is efficiently handled the desired results are not attainable. When I turn up the Report of the Committee on the Production and Distribution of Milk I find there that the same objection is put forward as far as the holding process is concerned. May I trouble the House with a brief quotation from what it says on that point? It says the holding plan requires careful cleaning and also skilled supervision. A further point is the question of cost. The plant is more costly to erect and more expensive to maintain as compared with pasteurisation. By the latter process, including the necessary handling and transport, it works out at rather less than 1d. per gallon, as against the holding cost, which is 50 per cent. more, or l½d. per gallon. It is agreed that as far as direct results are concerned there is little difference between the two. The Minister should examine the matter carefully and remember that people who have established plant costing a huge amount of money may be put to enormous expense if they are to replace it by the process of holding. There should not be any differ-
ence made—if the idea is to enable the Minister to declare that milk is safe or unsafe—as between the holding plant and any other plant.
One word as to the transport question, which is very much linked up with the question of a good milk supply. When the Orders of the Ministry are being considered I want it to be borne in mind that the producers of milk are to be subjected to certain conditions as far as the milk is concerned, and they are also subjected to certain conditions imposed by the railway companies and extremely Hard of fulfilment. For instance, they are required to make a declaration of net weight. It is a most difficult thing for any farm in the country to do in the busy season, especially when harvesting is on. A better arrangement ought to be made between the farming fraternity and the railway companies, and the latter should be made to understand that they must give greater facilities for transport of milk as far as the consumer is concerned. I should like to ask in regard to pasteurisation, whether it is proposed to allow the holding or the continuous flash process.

Mr. KILEY: I should like to ask a question with regard to Clause 4. Clause 4 says:
No person shall add any colouring matter or water or any dried or condensed milk…
and then it goes on to say that
No person shall cither by himself or by any servant or agent sell or offer or expose for sale any milk to which any such addition has been made.
The next Clause, however, says that no individual shall "knowingly" do any of the things there referred to. I want to know why the word "knowingly" is omitted from the second part of Clause 4. The first part of the Clause is quite clear, but it goes on to make it an offence to sell something, and in my judgment it is essential that the word "knowingly" should be inserted. Otherwise an innocent person might be subject to a prosecution that was vindictive or the result of over-zeal on the part of an inspector.

Sir A, MOND: Surely a person who adds water or dried milk or condensed milk must know that. Why, then, introduce the word "knowingly"?

Mr. KILEY: it is quite clear as regards the first part, but the person who sells or offers or exposes for sale may be quite a different person, and if the person who makes the addition sells the altered article to a second party, why should this second party be the criminal unless he does it knowingly? I do not want an agent or retailer who buys the milk to be made a criminal unless he acts with full knowledge, and I should like it to be made quite clear that it is not intended that an innocent party shall be punished.

Sir A. MOND: The point that the hon Member has raised is rather a Committee point. I should have thought it would have been quite clear that an innocent party will not suffer, but if that is not clear I will certainly consider the matter between now and the Committee stage. If the House will allow me I should now like to reply to some of the points which have been raised in the discussion. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Waterson) referred at some length to the question of pasteurisation, but I do not propose to deal with that question this evening. It will come up when the Orders have to be made, and the various point3 that the hon. Member has raised will receive the fullest consideration. I cannot admit that the only question in regard to pasteurisation is that of the bacteria in the milk. The main question is whether any damage is done to the milk. One process may retain the vitamines and those bacteria which protect us, while another process may destroy them. I am not giving any opinion on the subject, which is a highly technical one, but I must safeguard myself by saying that I must look at it from that point of view. If an Order is made under which milk can be described as pasteurised, the process described as pasteurisation must be a definite process, and one which we must be assured, on expert authority, does not in any way damage the milk. It docs not follow that persons adopting other processes of sterilization, some of which I think are harmful, will not be able to sell their product as sterilized milk, but it certainly should not be sold as pasteurised in our sense.

Mr. WATERSON: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I should like the point to be cleared up. In the event of an Order being issued,
would the people who already have the plant for the flash process be given an opportunity of meeting the right hon. Gentleman and discussing the matter with him—because they are experts— before he condemns that plant, which at present comprises 90 per cent. of the plant in operation?

Sir A. MOND: I do not know what the flash process is. I have not gone into the details, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall very carefully consult all the people who are interested in the matter, and obtain the best advice that I can, before making any Order. Undoubtedly all these various questions will be carefully considered, and judged on the best advice possible. I am only safeguarding myself against making any kind of decision on the subject this evening.
The discussion has ranged over a large field and the Bill has been received as favourably as one could expect a milk Bill to be received. Every milk Bill is certain to be the subject of much discussion by the people who are affected, some in one way and some in another. I should like to thank the House generally for the way in which they have received it. We are postponing the Act of 1915 for two years; that is all. Certain Clauses of the Bill are taken from that Act, including Clause 5, which the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Shoreditch (Dr. Addison), spent such a long time in denouncing, and which he called "window dressing." As a matter of fact it is not window dressing at all. I took great interest in putting that Clause in, and I attach very great importance to it. The object is to make it practically impossible for a farmer who knows he has a cow with a tubercular udder to go on using the milk from it without exposing himself to penalties more severe than any of the penalties under the Act of 1915. An hon. Member, who has now left the House, said it was practically impossible to diagnose tuberculosis of the udder. I have discussed this question with veterinary experts and practical farmers, and I am told the diagnosis is by no means so difficult as it is made out. At any rate, the farmer is put on his guard and can take steps to prevent himself from committing the offence. That in itself is a
very valuable step forward. The idea of the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Shoreditch, of a kind of Sherlock Holmes dodging about to some remote cow in a cowshed and back again is very good on paper, but in practice would involve the appointment of a large number of inspectors if it is satisfactorily done. Of course, we are not carrying out all the recommendations of the Astor Committee. As far as I can make out, one recommendation practically contradicts the next. I see proposals to obtain a high class of milk, to reduce the price, to prevent anyone making a profit, and to secure an increased quantity. It would take a much abler man than I am to reconcile all these conflicting claims.
I certainly will not undertake the task with regard to grading, but the right hon. Gentleman asked me to say something about it. I can only now give a rough outline of the grading which we intend. Certified milk will be graded very much on the present lines. Every animal will be subjected to the tuberculin test before being admitted to the herd and certified as a non-re-actor. Every three months the herd will be examined by a veterinary surgeon and the milk examined for tubercle bacillus. If there is evidence of tuberculosis the animal will be withdrawn from the herd. If milk from the group shows evidence of tuberculosis the whole group will be withdrawn until the affected animal is identified. Milk is to be bottled on the farm immediately after production and delivered to the consumer within two days of production. Bottles are to be completely sealed before delivery and must not contain more than 30,000 bacteria per cubic centimetre or any bacillus coli in a tenth of a cubic centimetre. In the case of Grade A milk the health of the herds is to be the same as with certified milk, except that there will be no tuberculin tests. The milk may be pasteurised, but if so it must be so designated. It must not contain more than 200,000 bacteria per cubic centimetre. These limitations involve the use of sterilized vessels, with careful regard to cleanliness, especially to ensure freedom from manurial contamination. Delivery from producer to retailer in sealed churns or bottles; from retailer to consumer in same vessels, or in sterilised bottles or
containers filled and scaled on the premises. That, if carried out, would greatly improve the quality of the milk. The examination would be a test of tuberculous milk. People who ask for Grade "A" milk will get Grade "A" milk, and milk which they can trust. If they continue to call for Grade "A" milk other grades of milk will not be sold. That is a reply to the right hon. Member for Shoreditch who really agrees with the policy we are pursuing, although he used some rather violent language. We must get the consumer interested. Other points that have been raised I will consider between now and the Committee stage, and I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Orders of the Day — AIR MINISTRY (KENLEY COMMON ACQUISITION) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Confirmation of greement.)

(1) The agreement is hereby sanctioned and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, and the President and the Corporation shall have, and shall be deemed to have had, all such powers as may he necessary in order to give effect to the agreement.
(2) Any land or rights acquired by the Corporation under this Act and the agreement shall be deemed to be land and rights acquired by them under the Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act, 1878, and that Art shall apply accordingly.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. ACLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, as I believe is the case, an entirely satisfactory arrangement has been come to with the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society with regard to what is to be given in exchange for what is taken? I understand that these matters have been negotiated with the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, but I think it is best that the right hon. Gentleman should make a statement that they have been settled in a friendly and satisfactory way.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The Bill is founded on a complete agreement as between the Ministry and the Corporation. All the societies and organisations and representative bodies concerned have been consulted from the start, and we have carried them with us completely.

Mr. ACLAND: Complete agreement?

Captain GUEST: Yes.

Clauses 2 (Stopping up of roads, etc., over aerodrome site,) 3 (Extinguishment and transfer of Common rights, etc.,) 4 (Assessment of compensation,) 5 (Expenses of Act,) 6 (Saving of powers of President and Corporation), and 7 {Short Title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule and Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

Order for Second Beading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."— [Sir John Baird.]

Mr. KILEY: May we have some information with regard to this Bill?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): As the House knows, this is an annual Bill, and its purpose is to give effect to the Resolutions passed by the Tynwald, the local Parliament of the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man has a separate financial existence; it levies its own taxes, and defrays its own expenses. In par ticular—and this will interest the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley)—it has complete liberty in regard to Customs and Excise, While the Resolutions require confirmation by the Imperial Parliament, it would be quite unprecedented for us to alter them. Undoubtedly, any action of that kind would produce a most serious breach in the relations of the two countries. That would be a position which, I am sure, the hon. Member would not desire to see.
I do not know whether the House wishes that I should go through the various Resolutions. If that is the desire
of the House it is possible to do so, but I may perhaps give a summary of them. Certain existing import duties, annually imposed, are continued for a further year. The Isle of Man adopts the British Budget and levies on cocoa, and there is Imperial preference as regards imports. [HON MEM BERS: "Oh!"] There is no use discussing this, and what I invite the House to do, in agreeing to the Second Reading of this Measure, is to carry on the good old custom that has been respected from time immemorial, namely to confirm the Resolutions of the Tynwald.

Mr. KILEY rose—

HON. MEMBERS: You have already spoken.

Mr. KILEY: No, I have not spoken. Mr. Speaker is conducting the proceedings, and he will call me to order if I infringe the Rules. As the Under-Secretary has said, this Bill is to confirm the desires of the Isle of Man Parliament. I am not sure whether that Parliament quite realised what an import duties tariff means. They may possibly not have had full information. I am sure if they realise what many hon. Members of this House—

major WARING: On a point of Order. Has not the hon. Member exhausted his right to speak?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that would be rather stretching the Rule. The hon. Member asked for an explanation of the Bill.

Mr. KILEY: If my hon. and gallant Friend is anxious to get away, I am sure the House will agree to his going. The point I was endeavouring to make, when I was interrupted, was that I am sure Members of the Parliament in the Isle of Man concerned with the proposals we are now considering did not altogether realise what is involved in the acceptance of the proposal of import duties. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked a question of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury some time ago. He wanted to know why it was that if you imported, say, mouth organs from Paris—

Sir J. BAIRD: On a point of Order. Is this—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is really going beyond the question.

Mr. KILEY: I was calling attention to an absurdity that exists, and which, I am quite sure, was not in the minds of those concerned with this Bill. It is quite open to me, if I so desire, to move that this Bill be read a Second time upon this day three months, in order to enable me to make any observations I may desire.

Sir J. BAIRD: On the point of Order. I do not see anything about mouth organs in this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would be out of order.

Mr. KILEY: Import duties would include mouth organs, but I think I shall be consulting the desires of hon. Members present if I refrain from taking any further action now.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to. Bill read a Second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Sir J. Baird.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment: to be read the Third time upon Friday.

Orders of the Day — UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords,]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee,) considered; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — EASTGATE BAPTIST CHAPEL AND PROCEEDS OF SALE OF CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL (LOUTH) CHARITIES BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. WATERSON: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not desire to secure the Third Reading of this Bill this evening. We have been exceptionally good in giving him the Committee stage. He might give
us an opportunity to look further at the Bill in order that we may see what we can make of it, so far as the Third Reading is concerned. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should leave it at least till to-morrow so that we can review the position.

Mr. LANE-FOX: This is a Bill that excites no controversy. It settles the affairs of two charities concerned with very poor people, and it is very necessary to get this Measure through quickly so that it may pass the other House before the Session closes.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Two minutes after Twelve o'Clock.